User talk:Filll/subpage

WP | Take the WP Challenge!

NOTE: It has always been my personal policy on Wikipedia to immediately strike or remove any discussion that I have posted that others deem offensive on request. I do this whether I agree with the assessment or not. It is not my intention to offend anyone or to threaten anyone. However, I have been known to try to warn other editors who I have observed flouting various policies and therefore endangering their privileges and the project.

dilution math corrections

Just a remainder in case you forgot, I'm still waiting on Talk:Homeopathy that you tell me how my dilution math is incorrect --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know that it is. I will get back to you when I get a spare moment. I have lots of other calculations to do.-- Filll (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you were busy on other talk pages. I just wanted to check my math before demolishing Peter Morrell's claims that the pheromones concentrations are actually are low. I think that most of the concentrations he talked about were between 2C and 3C, and there are problems about dogs breathing many liters of air, so they are sampling a lot more molecules (I need to check how many molecules a cubic meter of air has, and how much air a dog breathes) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Back of the envelope gives 1.1872 * 10²³ molecules in a deep breath. This assumes 1.2 g/L density (air at sea level) and 100% nitrogen (not bad, and a smaller source of error than the next assumption) with 4.6 L vital capacity (good for a 70 kg human). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nylon Bug

Someone already started it, and it's got substantial content. :) Elecmahm (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Old weight systems

I have collected a lot more information to extend the article on apothecaries' weight. I am still working on it, but you might be interested in what I have already in my sandbox. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I really appreciate it. I am poking around looking into miscibility calculations using Euler relations. To really do this reasonably accurately, one has to do quite a bit of real mathematics and real science, which is somewhat surprising. However, I think when it is done properly, we will have produced the most accurate contribution ever to this area; far more accurate than anything else I have seen in the literature. Plus learned a tiny bit too.--Filll (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My current position on the Moulton unblock/unban

For my current personal position, see User:Filll/Moultonunblock.--Filll (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have only had a cursory look into the Moulton ordeal, and I know you and I have had some slight disagreements in the past, but I wanted to comment on something you wrote:

If any restrictions against Moulton are to be lifted, I would suggest that it would be most prudent to, at a minimum, (1) do so with the clear understanding that Moulton only be allowed to edit solely in areas in which Moulton has no WP:COI difficulties such as Picard's biography, or ideological agendas, such as in the areas of evolution, creationism and intelligent design (2) avoid extremely sensitive topics like WP:BLP (3) be required to submit to an extended period of mentorship, with the understanding that if the mentor is unable to control him or unwilling to supervise him properly, that Moulton's editing privileges be restricted (4) Moulton be required to follow community norms of behavior including the following of Wikipedia principles like the WP:Five pillars (5) demonstrate that he can function and cooperate on Wikipedia productively and have those he works with attest to this fact or else have his privileges restricted again, by default.

I think much of this is reasonable and logical. 3, 4, and 5 are no brainers. 1 and 2 are a bit squishier (I too would restrict him from editing areas where he has a conflict of interest (the Picard article, for example), but would allow him to work on other living people's articles under the appropriate policies, and perhaps on the ideological articles as well (maybe restricting him to proposing any changes on talk pages)). But on the whole, I just wanted to say thank you for taking a calm and open approach to this. Mahalo, Filll. --Ali'i 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

People get so wrapped up in ideological advocacy, and paint others as unreasonable or monsters or whatever. If they just look to see what we are suggesting, they will see we just want to follow the principles of Wikipedia as closely as possible. There is no demand for revenge or to smear anyone. Oh well...--Filll (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

Filll, I saw your question on Fritzpoll's RfA. I was about to comment there but... eegads... I co-nominated him, it would probably be improper to get too involved within the RfA. Do you think it might be easier, and more reasonable, and more useful, for everyone if you yourself picked one or two questions from your challenge? Even with your multiple choice option, it could take hours upon hours to properly analyze the situations and consider all the mini-questions within questions. I understand your good intent, but I just think it is unlikely that most viewing the RfA will go through and read all of your questions and then all of his responses. It's just a bit much. I of course know they are optional, and so does Fritzpoll, but I actually think your questions could be usefull to RfA evaluations... just maybe eased in a little slower, so the community can digest it. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I think multiple choice is not too onerous, but then I am pretty experienced in these situations at this point. When I discuss them with other editors who are experienced in controversial article editing, they also are able to give very quick rational and detailed answers immediately, but that is a matter of experience. People who are not experienced are pretty overwhelmed I think. But that is the whole point of these User:Filll/WP Challenge exercises: to expose people that are unfamiliar with the controversial articles to this deeply troublesome area on Wikipedia. I will suggest he pick two of his choosing. How is that? Of course, as you note, these are purely optional.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. I think Fritzpoll will be fine answering any of the 8, I guess it was more of a time thing, and as I said above, I'm just not sure most who are evaluating him will read all 8 questions. Then some might start discussing answers... others are too lazy to click on the links, etc. Suggesting he pick 2 sounds fine to me. But of course I am a co-nom... so you should still do whatever you think is best. :)) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If he wants to do it, that is fine. If he is pressed for time, that is ok too. I understand of course. They are supposed to be fun and challenging and entertaining. If they are misery, then they are not serving much purpose.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw that you changed it, but I'm confused with something else now. Shouldn't he be answering the questions within the actual RfA page? You say to link to his answers, that's not the normal practice. Really, optimally, whatever questions he chooses to answer should be also pasted in to the RfA, regardless of size. When the RfA closes, people know not to ammend it, but if Fritz were answering elsewhere, it would be harder to later look back on his RfA in a single place. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well two or three RfA candidates have done it that way already, with a link. I have never asked this before; others did and that is how they decided to respond, which is fine with me. If he wants to post it there on the RfA page itself, that is fine too although it is nice to have a subpage of all the responses to the Challenge exercises so people can compare them and study them, etc.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Whatever is fine with the community, is fine with me. Also, I think any candidate that hopes to pass will be able to determine how/where they want to answer the question, so it's probably not a major issue. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Kim Bruning and a few others have suggested trying to improve our training materials for new admins and new editors and admin candidates. And these User:Filll/WP Challenge exercises are a tiny contribution to that effort. Now that I start to understand Wikipedia a little, I notice that very few have any experience with controversial issues. And admins are often pressed into service in these areas so it is good to expose them to it a bit and to see how their judgement is. Eventually I would favor having a much better set of training exercises and classes and lectures and so on that editors, admin candidates and new admins can take advantage of. I do not want to make it harder to become an admin; I want to see a higher fraction passing RfA, but I want to see those passing RfA having more experience in some of the more difficult areas. At least some superficial awareness, if nothing else.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed

Filll, I haven't yet purchased headphone, though I'll let you know when I do. However, I just happened to re-read some of our dialogue here[1] and was a bit shocked by your comments. Could you re-read this now with some separation of time and give me your feedback. You suggested that pro-homeopathy editors were ignoring the negative studies on Arsenicum album, and yet, when Arion and I pointed out that we do not know about any negative studies on this medicine, you accused me of "wikilawyering." I still don't get how you could pull this rabbit out of the hat. I previously asked for an apology, but never got it. I still believe that I deserve one. DanaUllman^Talk 00:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I offended you. I do not want to offend anyone. However, I would like us to aim towards an NPOV resource. And from all that I know and have read, to state that homeopathy is proven to work and there are no contrary studies that show no efficacy beyond placebo is inaccurate. You deny that such studies exist? I have read of several. Part of my disgust with the article and withdrawal from it has been that I did not want to spend endless hours fighting this pointless battle. I would rather do something where I can contribute in a positive way, like untwisting the nightmarish confused contradictory scales that are used in homeopathy to denote "potency".--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I have never said or even implied that there is "no negative research on homeopathy." There are plenty of negative studies on homeopathy. Our conversation would have been totally different if our talk was taking place under the larger article, homeopathy. However, our previous conversation took place in the article on Arsenicum album, and up until now, all of the research testing it has been positive (as far as I know). The probable reason for this is that the research testing it has been narrowed to animal and human trials in subjects who were exposed to that specific mineral (as compared with other research in which treating diseased states tends to require more individualization of remedy selection). I now understand why you said what you said, but I am still confused how you jumped to your generalization when I had already said that I was only referring to the subject of the article itself, Arsenicum. That is when you accused me of "wikilawyering," and then, Shoemaker chimed in with other offensive (and inaccurate) remarks. And then, to make things even worse, your silence has helped to put additional nails in my coffin. I don't get it. It is because I sense that you don't mean to be offensive that misunderstanding and your silence is so darn confusing. Please review our previous conversation to see what really happened, and if appropriate, please acknowledge what your new understanding is. DanaUllman^Talk 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well to be honest, if there are homeopathic treatments which have only strong positive results, then I am not sure how we should write the articles. If there are no mainstream medicine opinions to the contrary, then one line of thought is that we present the view that "the treatment has having only positive evidence in its favor". I do not know the literature on this. I would be quite surprised if this were true, but it is possible. For example, Zicam obviously has some clearly measurable biological effects and the manufacturer even had to pay legal settlements for Zicam's negative side effects on some people. So this is a complicated question and one for which the literature must be plumbed deeply.

On your potential sanctioning: I have witnessed your behavior on the talk pages of these articles for a long long time. Months. And to be honest, it was mainly disruptive. And almost all other contributors were driven away by the behavior of you and your friends. One can be pro-homeopathy and welcomed at Wikipedia, like User: Peter morrell. The difference is, willingness to work within the rules and principles and conventions of the community. I like you Dana and I have made various entreaties to try to keep you out of trouble, but when you are unfettered, you have not always done things that were to your advantage.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I appreciate your good nature, though your response above made me laugh. You pointed to Peter Morrill as a good editor who works within the wiki-policies, but it seems that you have not followed homeopathy articles much because Peter is so so so fed up with the disruption from the lividly anti-homeopathy editors, he has left the homeopathy articles. I'm glad that you considered him civil (he is, though he thinks that most editors of the homeopathy articles are not and that they game the system, using wiki-policies and using gang behavior (having an active group of experienced wiki-editors is effectively working to mute me).

There have been four large double-blind placebo controlled trials on the treatment of people with influenza with Oscillococcinum and even a Cochrane Report describing its effects as "promising," but the anti-homeopathy editors have effective kept this info out of the homeopathy article AND even out of the Oscillococcinum article (note: this medicine is not effective in the "prevention" of the flu, but it is effective in its treatment). And yet, I am "disruptive" for referring to it and wanting it as a part of the homeopathy article.

There IS a body of evidence on Arsenicum album, animal and human studies. And yet, most of these studies are ignored, but worse, when I posted on the Talk pages many of them, I got attacked, furiously, including by you (remember that "wikilawyering" comment). And yet, I got called "disruptive." The bottomline here is that IF you believe that homeopathy is totally bunk and totally quackery, then my references to research is "disruptive." But if you want wikipedia to be encyclopedic and NPOV, only POV-pushing anti-homeopathy editors will consider me disruptive.

As for Zicam, it is a homeopathic medicine, though it is called a "low potency" medicine because it is not potentized much. And this is one more bit of evidence of the embarrassing ignorance of so many anti-homeopathy editors because they lump together ALL homeopathic medicines (this is the epitome of sloppy thinking and analysis...though this is not surprising when these editors are POV-pushing). Yeah, it IS that bad...and it seems that you too have been fooled, though you seem curable. DanaUllman^Talk 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NTWW

On 24 May 2008, 17:00 (UTC), Not the Wikipedia Weekly will host a special episode on start-up Wikipedias in African languages, and other information on Wikipedia around the world, with special guest: Gerard Meijssen of OmegaWiki, and the World Language Documentation Centre Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Help on Thomas G. Barnes

Help! Got an insistent editor that wants to weasel the pseudoscientific aspect of his creationist beliefs. Please assist. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

NTWW

IT's recording now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my computer is sickly at the moment so I won't be joining you. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sickly? Try homeopathy. Water with a crushed microchip poured onto your computer should help. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Imagination award

File:Lennon imagine.jpg

I, Renata3, award you this Imagination Award for coming up with weirdest AFG challenge situations that are extremely fun to read as they are so WikiDrama-like :) Renata (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I want them to be fun to read, and not just a chore. I also want to show how ridiculous some of these editing disputes can be.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

AGF Challenge at RfA

Hi Filll, I just started a discussion thread at RfA related to your AGF Challenge questions hereBalloonman (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Emails about a current RfA

Filll, I am in possession of an email apparently sent by you through the internal email system referring the recipient to the oppose section of a current RfA. I am sure you are aware of the guidelines against canvassing, and that a campaign of soliciting opposition to a current RfA from multiple users would be a serious breach of those guidelines. Could you confirm (a) whether you have indeed sent such message and (b) to how many users these have been sent. WjBscribe 01:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I would appreciate a copy of this email, if you did indeed send it and do not object. I would very much like to know what has been said behind-the-scenes about my candidacy. I assume the RfA closer will take into account these incident, if what Will says is true. Thank you, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind answering Fill? There's quite a few of us waiting to know. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise - Alison ^❤ 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So are you, would you consider answering WJB on this page? NonvocalScream (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You will get a full announcement of the details when everyone else does. Just relax. I have plenty to say. --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fair. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to spoof an email. Smells like some dramaz developing around here, particularly given the growing attention given to Filll's AGF challenge....anybody would think some people are taking "challenge" a bit to far... Shot info (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so easy to do it through the Wikipedia email system, which tags the logged in user's email to the info. And I have to admit, the silence (and Filll's constant in-out at the ID Project membership list) is deafening. SirFozzie (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it wasn't sent to WJB, but he is "in possession" of it, one can only wonder what has happened with it. Unless of course people out there have some sort of "magic" mailer that can pull out more source information that what the server actually does forward... Shot info (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded the e-mail to WJB (Filll sent it to me through MediaWiki); another ID editor told me (I'm pretty sure he wasn't lying) Filll sent out three of those canvassing e-mails. Furthermore, nearly all the ID project members are opposing DHMO... I'm fairly certain Filll wasn't the only one canvassing. · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect and I will be making a full public announcement. Thank you.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just how are you going to do that? Please bear in mind that some of us don't use IRC. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not care. Go away. I have had enough of your mean spirited harassment and ugliness and personal attacks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil; and assume good faith; we all know that you are an advocate for that rule with you assume good faith "challenge" - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 14:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the Diligent Digital Terrier. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 15:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:NPA. Do not escalate this. This is your only warning.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly am I doing that requires a warning? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 15:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DT and RC here - they're not doing anything wrong by validly questioning a contributor over concerns raised by a bureaucrat. Orderinchaos 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered privately to Arbcomm over 24 hours ago. The rest of you can wait, thanks. I am not beholden to you, but to the authorities, right? What is your rush?--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That would in and of itself have been a valid answer to their queries. Orderinchaos 16:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration to look into your conduct has been made here. Please make a statement. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 01:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI on CorticoSpinal

As a courtesy I mention here that I have filed a Wikipedia incident noticeboard report at WP:ANI#User:CorticoSpinal. The report's subject is CorticoSpinal, but your name is in the report. Eubulides (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I wash my hands of this. Handle your mess yourselves.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

NTWW video episodes

Since you expressed in the concept of video episodes before, I'd like to point you to Wikipedia talk:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Live from New York... it's video episodes!. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but my impression is that those are a very bad idea and I would not suggest anyone take part in them. They are just far too dangerous and we should not be encouraging such things.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Announcement

For the forseeable future, I will not take part in any polls such as RfAs or RfBs. These are becoming too ugly and too fraught with bad feelings for anyone to consider participating in them. I have had it with the intimidation and the threats, and the coercion and worse that accompanies them. --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A public statement about the DMHO RfA

I’ve been accused of canvassing the Dihydrogen Monoxide RFA. Canvassing is a serious matter and this deserves a response. I did not intentionally canvass. What I did do was e-mail three people and inform them that the RfA was happening. Mentioning the existence of an RfA to a small number of people, without suggesting how to vote, is normal communication among Wikipedians.

One thing I did that might not appear normal: instead of linking to the entire thread—which was what I intended to do, I just cut and pasted from the address bar on my browser window, thereby linking to the “oppose” subsection which I had recently visited. That was a careless mistake.

Pretty much all of us have posted the wrong link by accident some time or other, and that was exactly what I did. This mistake was so close to the link I actually intended to send that I didn’t even realize I’d made the error until comments about it came back to me.

I apologize for the mistake and I apologize for the confusion and distress it caused. I know the circumstances look dubious. I ask everyone who sees this statement to assume good faith and bear the following in mind:

• I contacted only three people.
• Nothing else in the short messages had any suggestion about how to vote.
• In over 30,000 edits and 3 featured articles, I’ve never made an error remotely like this one before.
• I promise it will never happen again.

Filll, I accept your apology. Thank you for your honesty. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Response I'm glad to hear it won't happen again, and I'm perfectly fine with your apology. That being said, there are reasons why this looks bad:

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Disruptive canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing
Perception	Friendly---You state it was limited to 3, and I believe you. But we have no way of knowing this for sure because it was done in secret.		Disruptive---Based on what I know, the message wasn't neutral, it was intent on highlighting one side. A neutral message would be, "I just wanted to let you know about an ongoing RfA."		Disruptive---Since it was limited to 3, it is not unreasonable to believe that you expected those three to agree with you and thought none of them would reveal your email.		Disruptive---Since it was done via email, it was clearly done in the secret. Email is generally the best way to keep secret communications secret, unless somebody decides to share.

Thus, of the four criteria required to be considered a friendly notice as compared to canvassing, your email only meets one of those three and that's assuming we AGF and trust that there were only 3 people contacted. The other 3 criteria, were clear violations of WP:CANVASS. Again, I will AGF and I consider this an isolated incident, but this was a clear violation of Canvass.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC) subpage

I've replied here. By the way, I'm curious as to why you e-mailed me to notify me of DHMO's RFA? We've never met before, as far as I know. · AndonicO ^Engage. 22:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You will forgive me if I decline to continue this conversation until after the current imbroglio has passed. I assure you, there was nothing improper or nefarious involved. And as you know from the followup email(s) you received from me, I was completely unaware that I had committed any offense of any kind.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

AndonicO, I'm assuming that question was for Filll not for me?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, sorry to see all the above. You've done an immense amount of work here, and unfortunately some situations get rather fraught, where expressing ideas with enthusiasm rather than extreme tact can lead to misunderstandings. Evidently you've inadvertently gone over the line in notifying people, and have rightly promised that it won't happen again. In my opinion the responses are well measured and should be fully appreciated. The idea of withdrawing for a bit from discussions where things get threatening looks wise to me, if there's anything I can do to help you through this sticky patch do let me know, dave souza, talk 10:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel really bad that not even ArbCom members follow what I thought were the rules. Sorry to be harsh, but this is very disillusioning. Maybe Wikipedia really is breaking down as you suggest above. Sorry for expressing this to you now. I know this is a difficult time for you. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They only do it because we let them do it. If we object as a community, it will not happen.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Skype?

Filll, I know your system has been having some technical difficulties of late, but if you could get on Skype, I'd really love a chat with you mate. Will it be possible? Anthøny 20:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We will see.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

As a previously involved editor on Noah's Ark you might be interested in a current call for a vote on an important aspect of that article. PiCo (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have noted above, I will not be participating in (1) controversial articles like Noah's Ark, since it is far too dangerous, and is likely to get someone upset to the point of threatening others or even wanting to kill others (2) any polls about anything, since again polls are far too dangerous and any such vote will probably get someone upset, causing them to threaten others or want to take revenge on someone for having voted the "wrong" way.

It is just not worth getting killed over. In fact, my advice would be just to delete the entire article since Noah's Ark gets too many people upset. And clearly, the community seems not to be interested in accuracy or following its own policies or preventing such aggressive activity. However, the community seems very interested in charging people with violations of WP:CIVIL for such terrible "offenses" as stating "that argument is silly" or "I disagree with your reasoning". --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Death threats? Are you serious? PiCo (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am serious. I wish was kidding.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are also admins who have used "death threats" as a reason to exercise their right to vanish and have their contributions deleted (just before an arbitration in which their behavior might be called into question), only to show up immediately with a new name and still with admin duties. –Mattisse (Talk) 19:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that is possible. I do not know of any such cases however. That does not mean it has not happened.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I know of such a case. It was part of my traumatic first year on Wikipedia when I was still idealistic about the project. Now I guess I should learn to expect anything. It is the way of the world. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said over a year ago. "For better or worse ... people read this shit ... and believe it to be truth". I see my students do it every day. Don't let the f@ckwits win! My project for next year is to have every student in AP Biology create an account and be responsible for editing for improvement a biology article (steering clear of main-stream) You know ... the cool stuff like intoxication in bees. I'm hoping you will be around to serve as a mentor. Do try to stay out of trouble until then! --JimmyButler (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Response

Response I'm glad to hear it won't happen again, and I'm perfectly fine with your apology. That being said, there are reasons why this looks bad:

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Disruptive canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing
Perception	Friendly---You state it was limited to 3, and I believe you. But we have no way of knowing this for sure because it was done in secret.		Disruptive---Based on what I know, the message wasn't neutral, it was intent on highlighting one side. A neutral message would be, "I just wanted to let you know about an ongoing RfA."		Disruptive---Since it was limited to 3, it is not unreasonable to believe that you expected those three to agree with you and thought none of them would reveal your email.		Disruptive---Since it was done via email, it was clearly done in the secret. Email is generally the best way to keep secret communications secret, unless somebody decides to share.

Thus, of the four criteria required to be considered a friendly notice as compared to canvassing, your email only meets one of those three and that's assuming we AGF and trust that there were only 3 people contacted. The other 3 criteria, were clear violations of WP:CANVASS. Again, I will AGF and I consider this an isolated incident, but this was a clear violation of Canvass.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have decided now that that charade of an RfA is over that I will respond further to this. I find several things that I find amazing about it:

• With about 100 responses in the first 12 hours and about 170 responses in the first 24 hours, that more people did not think it was somewhat unusual. How many RfAs garner almost 400 votes, a good 48 hours before they are scheduled to finish?
• That there was some surprise that his attacks on a group a couple of weeks earlier in his blog would actually lead the members of that group to be less than enthusiastic about supporting him? Why is that a surprise?
• That given the Moulton RfC, the Durova offer to help Moulton if he completed certain tasks which he declined to do, the Moulton Arbcomm appeal which was declined, the efforts by WAS 4.250, Lar and Kim Bruning to get Moulton to cooperate which failed, the AN and AN/I threads on Moulton which were not successful in convincing people to unblock and the 2nd Moulton Arbcomm appeal which also was declined, that the candidate wanted Moulton unblocked? And that this was not viewed as a bigger judgement problem?
• That gaming the FAC system was not viewed as more problematic?
• That east718's serious revelation did not cause more of a stampede?
• That the 5 RfAs within a year or so were not viewed as more troubling?
• That there was so much defensiveness associated with the "white pride" support, and hostility towards those questioning it?

Even if all the problems with the previously failed RfAs are ignored, this is quite a serious list. Any one or two of these alone would have caused most RfAs a serious problem.

It is even a bit stranger to consider that his coach, Balloonman himself, had all kinds of misgivings about supporting this. And somehow that did not cause bigger problems.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to response

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Disruptive canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing
Perception	Friendly---You state it was limited to 3, and I believe you. But we have no way of knowing this for sure because it was done in secret. I contacted WJBScribe immediately with the details when I found out there might be a problem. And I notice no others have come forward. Arbcomm can contact those I mentioned to him and see if they received the message.		Disruptive---Based on what I know, the message wasn't neutral, it was intent on highlighting one side. A neutral message would be, "I just wanted to let you know about an ongoing RfA." It was pretty neutral. And I have the copies still.		Disruptive---Since it was limited to 3, it is not unreasonable to believe that you expected those three to agree with you and thought none of them would reveal your email. What does that mean? It was not disruptive as far as I know. And no I did not think that revealing it was any big deal since I did not think it was canvassing. I even had an email exchange with Andonico about this. And I have copies. And I had no idea if they would support or oppose. At first I thought I might support until I saw the blog entry.		Disruptive---Since it was done via email, it was clearly done in the secret. Email is generally the best way to keep secret communications secret, unless somebody decides to share. There was no attempt to keep it secret since I didn't think that I was doing anything wrong.

--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

subpage

G'day Filll

I hope you're as good as can be under the current circumstances....! I've seen quite alot of your posts around the place, and am concerned that you're getting the rough end of the wiki stick in many ways - and that you're in danger of burning out / shooting through.... you might (by now) have seen my post at the WP:NTWW page about the possible topics - and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.... equally - if you're stressed out or just plain sick of the whole affair, then that's cool too..... I bought you a beer so we could talk over it, but such are the vagaries of the wiki that I'm just going to have to drink it for you too.... greater love hath no man! take care dude, and best wishes.... Privatemusings (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it is probably best that I do not respond at WP:NTWW, at least in a recorded show, until this is over. I do take umbrage at the suggestion or implication that somehow I am part of an evil clique that is involved in all sorts of bad behavior. I categorically deny it. If such a thing is true, I want to see the evidence of it. At the risk of being charged with a violation of WP:CIVIL, put up or....

I get awfully tired of defending myself and my fellow editors against one spurious ridiculous charge after another. And then, while the community is spinning its wheels trying to string me up, I witness the seeming complete indifference of the community to death threats, and threats of outing, and extortion, and stalking, and harassment, and attacks motivated by a desire for vengeance, and even these completely inconsistent CIVIL standards. How on earth is the phrase "self promoter" deemed to be a personal attack (per the Wiki God King; I have to dig up that link I think) and a violation of WP:CIVIL and a blockable offense, and the words "POV pusher" or "troll" or "silly" or "nonsense" (more examples are here) are supposedly a violation of WP:CIVIL, while the use of the word "f*ckwit" is not even worth a warning or a caution? I have been chewed out for even suggesting that both sides of this rancorous discussion giving rise to the "f*ckwit" comment should have been cautioned , since supposedly in this case the word "f*ckwit" was completely understandable and reasonable and they had good reason to use it and so on and so forth. Well, I think that just about sums it up. I guarantee if I used the word "f*ckwit" as part of an onwiki conversation, I would get in trouble for it, and rightly so. And to add insult to injury, when I asked about it, people edit-warred to keep this offensive insult on the page. And repeated it other places.

Interesting set of standards we have...--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fill hun

What is it that has upset someone who is usually so composed? I'm surprised. I must've missed half of what's been happening. I'll have to reread what you've put above again, but if you think you can explain it to someone like me who needs the Ladybird Books version which uses words of one syllable, email me:) Sticky Parkin 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not know you. The short answer is, some people are very angry at me and some other editors who edit the same sorts of articles I do. And these people are so angry, they want to do us harm. So I have decided that until the community decides that threats and attacks are improper, I will avoid the topics that seem to make these angry people so upset.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I really hope that no-one would want to do you harm. If you mean Cla58 -whose name I can't remember offhand without looking it up, no disrespect to him, I hope you know who I mean :) I like to think he doesn't mean 'threats', certainly not physical threats or real-world off wiki action of some kind threats. I interpreted his comments here more as meaning he thought people might get told off on wiki/disciplined here if they carried on as he considered they were and he tried to get them blocked. It's not like that doesn't happen quite often around those articles.:) But then that's just my hope, I do get in trouble becauuse I have an optimistic view of people sometimes so people think I'm being faux naive, and I would need to reread all the diffs etc, and I've not really studied his comments on WR to see if he really implied he would do something else to people. If he did, that's mean and a bit intimidating IMHO :( Sticky Parkin 18:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

a chat with odd nature, you and some others?

Hi filll - I've replied over at WP:NTWW saying basically this - that I think it would be both interesting, and potentially very helpful to have a podcast such as the one you suggested there.... I'm hoping you're still interested! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that you will find odd nature unwilling to participate but you can try to get him or her. I am wondering if given the fact that litigation is pending, it might not be better for me at least to designate someone as a "representative" who is not involved in the litigation, to speak on my side of the issue. This is sort of the function a lawyer would perform in the real world. I have to think about it however.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Filll, are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't support creationism? You have got to be kidding me. I can show you several reports from Humanist organisations that suggest that the Roman Catholic Church supports creationism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you are right. I did some research and found out that the Roman Catholic Church is not known for its support for creationism or Intelligent Deign. How do you know so much? You are a smart guy. I am mainly interested in Humanism. I don’t have great knowledge about religious organizations. Thank you for your great comments. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not know much about humanism to be honest; I had never even heard of it until I was about 25 or so. But the RCC has for at least 100 years if not longer come out to varying degrees against creationism, which is mainly a movement in the United States and mainly a belief that is fostered among some Protestant sects with extreme views. And most of this creationism, even there, really is a very recent phenomenon with very weak roots. Even in the "Scopes Monkey Trial", William Jennings Bryant, the prosecution attorney who was on the "creationist side" was known to be an evolution supporter. This is essentially a tempest in a teapot created by a very small very angry very ignorant and very loud aggressive group. --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought

There's just nothing that makes me believe that it would be worth my time and energy to stay, but I appreciate your wanting me to, that was nice. I might, I hope without offending, suggest that you could sometimes take your own advice?

There's a meanness here, a toxic atmosphere that I just don't care to be around, and while sometimes I wish some of the pro-science editors would be more civil, because I think they're making their job more difficult by giving people a red herring to distract from the real problems of the WP, it's not that kind of incivility that I find really unpleasant, it's the undercover incivility that masks a disrespect for NPOV under the guise of civility. That's what really makes WP intolerable for me. Well, I've said too much; adieu. Woonpton (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not quite sure what you mean. I do try to show respect for NPOV. It is not always possible to achieve given assorted difficulties here, but I think it is a worthwhile and worthy goal. I avoid profanity here on Wikipedia. I have always had and continue to have a standing offer to remove or strike any post of mine which offends someone, whether I agree with the complaint about my post or not. Frankly, at least compared to what I have seen in research and academia, my impression is that the vast majority of pro-science editors are far far far more civil than what is common in the real world. Just my observation. Some do not respect NPOV or understand it very well, but most of the pro-science editors I have worked with seem to accept it. But oh well, I guess you are gone so I will not quite know what you mean. Sorry. Good luck.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm not completely gone after all, because I wanted to see how the intelligent design thing came out so I came back to check that and looked around at some other things that have popped up in the meantime. Anyway, I'm glad I cruised by here and found your note. I didn't express myself well, I guess, because I didn't mean it the way you took it. It's the fringe POV-pushers that create the toxic environment in Wikipedia that I find intolerable. It wasn't directed at you. Sorry about the confusion. Woonpton (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NBD

Just read User:Filll#RfAs_and_threats. I like it. I think WP:NBD is so outdated that the section should be removed. This has probably been discussed before, but in light of recent events I wonder if a proposal to remove it would get more traction now. Although the last thing needed now is more drama. Thought? Yilloslime (t) 15:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. However, I am more concerned with the community taking a stand against threats and revenge and attacks, particularly for "votes" in these polls.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya...Yilloslime (t) 16:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design RfC

You've been named as an involved party at this RfAR. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 13:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD of User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame

User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame was mentioned on ANI. I believe it only creates divsion in the community and does nto serve any enxyclopedic purpose - as such I have MfD'd it. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame. Viridae^Talk 12:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"an angry dictator"? Whatever happened to AGF and WP:CIVIL? Mr.Z-man 23:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I did not say he was an angry dictator, only that he was behaving like one. Second, I have had many encounters with this editor, and remember that AGF is "not a suicide pact". If someone shows compelling evidence of behavior that is not worthy of being treated with AGF, then we are not required to. Remember that? Also, I take umbrage at my AGFC being used against me as a weapon. Give it a rest.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my first comment in the matter, so I'm not sure what "Give it a rest" is supposed to mean, but whatever... Mr.Z-man 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look above, you will see I have currently had my fill of bullying, harassment, intimidation and other assorted attacks. Thanks so much.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you implying? That my post was harassment? Mr.Z-man 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A note

I believe it is unhelpful for you to continue to bring up Thatcher's statemets. In fact, I believe the general tactic you are engaging in over the ongoing, multiple RFCed dispute is unhelpful. I believe you would be best served to admit you have failed to engage civily, as wikipedia defines it, at all times, ask for direct, nonconfrontation assistance and advocacy when you are found to have been incivil, but request similar concessions from those displeased with your conduct. In other words, you should bind the adminstrator-types who are civil-freaks into a position of advocacy for your content by requiring them to help you deal with content issues through a civility-mentorship program. Food for thought. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally have never used unedited profanity that was not at least partially obscured on Wikipedia. I have been accused of incivility and personal attacks of course. I have catalogued some of them here. So I not only admit these, but I have kept a record of them. Now whether these really are uncivil or an abuse of CIVIL or whether our standards for CIVIL are consistent and appropriate or not is another question. However, these are the recent claims of uncivil behavior against me. I have made it a practice to always remove any post of mine that anyone claims offends them immediately on request, whether I agree with this or not [2]. I have of course asked for assistance at times, but I notice that recently on the AN/I complaint I brought for one editor calling another editor a "f_ckwit" did not go over well. One of the "CIVILITY" freak admins had seen this and done nothing to stop it and even tried to advertise this to cause chaos and animosity. I complained, and it took over 30 hours for anyone to even be cautioned for this; editors even edit warred to keep it in place. I was even privately chastised for trying to have the term "f_ckwit" removed and have the editors involved cautioned, since I was told that it looked bad for me to do it by another "CIVILITY" freak admin. Well frankly, I do not have very much respect for them and their "political correctness" at this point. If I was not so bound by civility, I would tell them all where to shove it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Win, or be right? Your choice. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not sure there is any "winning". And I am not sure anyone is "right". Has it been claimed that I violated CIVIL? Sure, look at the link to the list I posted. Are some of those "correct" violations of CIVIL? I do not know, what is "correct"? But I am not hiding the fact that some claim I have violated CIVIL. And I am not claiming I have never offended anyone. As I said, I have a standing offer to remove any purportedly offending material. I do not think I am taking some sort of unreasonable position here. You obviously seem to think I am. Ok, whatever... In many cases, I think the only think that will satisfy people is if I scramble my password and leave Wikipedia, because people here are so so so so so so so so so so so so angry angry angry even FURIOUS about just plain nonsense. So have it your way. You want to be right? Ok you are right. I don't care.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's put goals on a page, then. Here's my goal list, from easy to hard.

1. Make people I like stop getting badgered.
2. Ensure that content that I am a layperson with respect to is an accurate respresentation of what I should know.
3. Create an environment where experts are welcomed and respected, not assaulted for knowing more than laypersons.
4. Correct articles on finance and economics such that they reflect mainstream economic thinking in appropriate proportion to heterodox theories, with no weight provided to loony nutters who no one listens to.

I believe we can quickly do 1. I believe if you were to write the following in responce to every complaint to you with regards to civility, you would quickly stop getting badgered.

"I realize that many on wikipedia believe I am incivil. I would very much like to correct my civility, and seek editors who, in good faith, would like to help me do this. If you are such an editor, please help me by interjecting yourself into debates where I have become incivil, and supporting my side of such debate without incivility, informing me of your actions on my talk page. I will immediately distance myself from such debate and observe your actions. If it turns out that you can get accurate, NPOV content on a page in such dispute without resorting to incivility, I will have learnt something, the encyclopedia will have been improved and there will be no incivility. If you disagree with my standards of accuracy or NPOV, please seek an advocate that agrees with me to take up this burden, as I have found that I have a hard time taking instruction from people who I believe are supporting content that I consider inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I know this is a failing of mine. Thank you."

Civil pov pushers will be unable to take you up on this, but legitmate third party editors (like many of your current opponents), will be forced to deal with the crap that you do, or admit that they can't do it and can't find anyone to do it. It's a win-win. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

<undent>In response to their threats, I have quit editing all the articles they are so upset about. I have stopped voting in response to their threats. That is not enough?--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth

I'm withdrawing to show support for the struggles of those who have been dedicated to improve wikipedia, but have been punished for defending it's standards, my statement is on User:AkselGerner. I'm not special or a major editor or anything, but I like truth and fairness and making the world smarter or at least more knowledgeable. Wikipedia does that, for now, but it can't continue to do that if nothing is done to curb the influence of abusive, dishonest, backward-minded agitators. I think it's time to let the nutters run the madhouse, to see how the establishment likes that.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

You should have mail. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Durova has blanked the thread. Oversight requests will probably need to come from you. See WP:OVERSIGHT for the e-mail address you will need to write to. Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

You might be interested in User_talk:PouponOnToast#Warn. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Per your request, I used checkuser on you and user:Robert Stevens to determine whether or not you are sockpuppets, and I am reporting the result here, publicly. It is, in my opinion, virtually certain that you are two different people. Raul654 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough

This has gone far enough. Stop adding attacks on me to your userspace, accusing me of being a "Wikipedia Review editor." I don't condone or promote that site at all, and on the contrary I was outed by them and members have tried to make disturbing advances on me there. Please stop trying to smear and provoke me. krimpet✽ 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove material that is part of an Arbcomm proceeding. Thanks. And it did not explicitly label you as a "Wikipedia Review editor", did it? Although you are a member of Wikipedia Review and an editor here, so it is quite accurate, isn't it? --Filll (talk | wpc) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I have altered it to explicitly state that you do not want to be known as a Wikipedia Review editor, as you have made clear.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, in my opinion Krimpet has a fair point that it's wrong to imply in any way that she should be labelled as a "Wikipedia Review editor." As I've shown in more detail elsewhere,[3] it seems clear that she has posted there and is likely to have been influenced by discussions there, but if anything her post as quoted shows dismay at the bad practices at WR and not any support. Perhaps this could be made clearer in your summary. . dave souza, talk 09:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to word it to convey the idea that Krimpet does not want to be identified as a "Wikipedia Review editor". If anyone can think of better wording than what I have used, I am open to suggestions.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this is semantics, but It was Brandt that outed you, and the WR immediately made sure that no search engine would ever pick it up by tarpitting it so only members could see it. That's as much as they can do about it; they don't control what Brandt does. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, do you mean that it was Brandt that outed Krimpet? As far as I know, it was Moulton who outed Filll. . dave souza, talk 09:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Brandt outed Krimpet. The WR topic said, "Krimpet on [Brandt's site]! Why?" AFAIK, nobody mentioned her name on the site, deferring to Brandt's site. I have little knowledge of this unfolding situation (I assume this refers to the C68-SV-FM case) other than that. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Email

Thatcher has removed our little thread; please email me about why you think what you think. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I told you it was sensitive.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't expect Thatcher to outright remove it. Apparently he was watchlisting the page. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Filll/RfA review

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. llamadog903 (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to User:Filll/RfA review. I've nominated the resulting redirect for deletion. Llama, please be more careful and assume good faith that Filll was going to fill it out. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

regarding AN comments

Based on the 'defenses' OM has used in the past, I'd be surprized if the committee would find it compelling. That said, I don't care for this type of hearing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Nothing like prejudging huh? Wow I bet it feels good.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going by what the discussion on the hearing pages is from the committee (mostly FT2). In addition, I can only go by what I've seen of his actions in the past. An incident similar to those described on the arbcom evidence page that was not highlighted there where OM did a lot of work to take a pretty article to really good and then nearly destroyed it all with unfounded personal attacks so egregious that even OM deleted most if it himself after a day of reflection. This was in relation to getting the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event article to FA.

So, I don't feel good about this at all. I think it was a mistaken process, even if the result is likely a good one for the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)