User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 7

Stomata revert

Just curious about the white spots on this image - do you know what they are?

. Regards: Greg5030 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with conifer morphology to say with certainty. They could be anything from flakes of cuticular wax to depression pits for stomata. However, this is almost certainly not a pine branch. Pine needles have a characteristic base that isn't present in this photo. however, I couldn't make a guess at the correct genus without knowking the locality, whether the tree was native there, and probably a mature seed cone. You might be able to get better information at the talk page for WP:PLANTS, where there are some folks more experienced with conifers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology

I've returned to this article. I've outlined in the Talk page what I would like to do. You might like to look in, since you were taking an interest earlier. PiCo (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

nomina illegitima

About the illegitimate names in the 1910-1930 interval, what I've seen is (1) within the genus Rosa, that might hinge on dismissing an 1880 name as invalid, and (2) two in Brassicaceae where genus transfer was involved, and that don't seem to involve applying the Kew Rule (which ought to have disappeared around 1905). When I get a chance to spend some time in the library, I'll read the introductions to as many of the Codes as are there, to see what are said to be the major changes, and perhaps home in on the problem that way. It is rather a sad situation, because my first thought was that the Rosa taxonomist was batty. P.S. It is so refreshing to see Latin being used; I rely in it quite a lot in publications where the main language is something that I can't even read; not that I can produce passable Latin, just reading it is enormously useful. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Metzgeriales

I find this area very interesting. Thanks for correcting my mistake and explaining it. ?oygul (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Drphilharmonic

Hey EncycloPetey, I saw you didn't block the IP, 76.173.217.206 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). Is that on purpose? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's not so relevant anymore, maybe, but I'm wondering--should you not have let someone else block the editor, given that you have reverted them a bunch of times and this is not a clear-cut case of vandalism? Drmies (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  The IP gets blocked by default, and you can verify that the status of the IP is currently blocked. Drphilharmonic was not blocked for vandalism, but for violation of the 3-revert rule. He was warned against violating the rule (for the second time in less than a month), and he reverted 5 times over three other editors. I recommend reading Drphilharmonic's own comments on his own talk page to see the situation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please see my response to your note, on my talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Brassicaceae/specifiers etc.

Hello EncycloPetey. I get the impression that User:Drmies has run with this subject matter as far as they wish, so I thought it preferable to continue here. I hope you don't mind my pursuing this particular question - it's really for my own interest rather than because I'm pushing a view (and it's all rather academic as far as the article is concerned, as that has now been re-worded). Anyway, regarding the use of "has" v. "have" in "one of the eight plant family names" etc, I think your examples of other use of specifiers are not comparable in this instance. "One of the cities has fallen" is specifying only one city out of several - the other cities have not fallen - hence the singular use of the verb. However "one of the eight plant family names that have accepted alternative names" is including Brassicaceae with the other seven - all of the eight have accepted alternative names not ending with the suffix - hence it (Brassicaceae) is not being specified in an exclusive way. The equivalent cities statement would be something like "London is one of the nine cities that have a port that is protected by a tidal barrier"; it would be incorrect to write "London is one of the nine cities that has a port that is protected by a tidal barrier". The first use of the word "that" effectively trumps the earlier "one of" specifier, as it itself specifies the nine cities (or eight plant family names), which of course are plural. I think the sentence construction is complicated by the double use of the word "that", the first of which refers to a plural (the nine cities or eight plant family names), the second to a singular ("a port" or "an accepted alternative name"). The other example you give (using the specifier "either") is of course not comparable because "either" does indeed specify a singular. ? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your example of "one of the cities has fallen" is sturctured without a dependent clause, and so isn't a comparable example. A better example would be "one of the cities that has fallen". I do undersatnd what you are saying, and there are situations where I would agree with you about the use of the plural, but since the subject is "Brassicaceae" / "one", I interpret botht he prepositional phrase and dependent clause pointing back to that referent. Your "London is one..." I would likewise interpret that way. Yes, the other cities have ports of that sort, but they are not being discussed. Compare "London is one city that has..." with "London is one of the cities that has...", and notice that both sentences are saying exactly the same thing. The only difference is that the second phrasing moves "city" into a prepositional phrase so that more descriptives may be included. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "one of the cities has fallen" is not a comparable example, but that indeed was the point I was making. If you revisit the dialogue at Drmies's talk page, you will see that originally that line was not my example, but rather your own. (I hope that I do not appear indignant about this, as that is not my mood. I am just curious). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankspam

Hey, happy to see you can join us for lunch on Saturday! :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking forawrd to it. I actually recognized a couple of the names of prospective attendees. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder about this, and that you can find location info etc. on the meetup page. Regards, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project

Hi! It was nice to meet you last weekend! Would you be interested in coming in to the office for a one-on-one interview? Is there a time that works for you?

Victor Grigas (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Coming in to the office requires a rather long trip on a day off. I might be able to pop down the week after next, when I have a week off from work and will want to visit the UC Berkeley library and Jepson Herbarium for some research. Failing that, we might have to do something by e-mail. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear EncyclopPetey,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Encylopedia of Earth

Hi, I noticed your revert to an addition to Plant based on the Encyclopedia of Earth. I know nothing about it, but am revising Cactus presently where it's used as a source (by a previous editor I hasten to add). Superficially it looks reliable; can you enlighten me? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a collaborative on-line encyclopedia, just one step removed from being a wiki. The article writers are frequently writing well outside their area of expertise, and I've seen some really weird content given undue emphasis as a result. I wouldn't use it as a source at all. For example, the author of their "cactus" article (and author of many of their articles) is C. Michael Hogan, who is a physicist. His article on the cactus says that most cacti have a high woody content to their stems, which I rather doubt as there are many small and fleshy cacti. It's a gross over-generlization at best. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'll look at what it's used for in Cactus and find a better source. (There are quite a few rather poor web sources put there by earlier editors which need sorting.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A bit late, sorry, I'm always late at replying

Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at ZxxZxxZ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Z 12:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Areceae stubs

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Input sought

Please see Talk:Botany#Botany_article_structure_and_concerns. Thank you.512bits (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Article protection

I noticed you've rightly been protecting some articles lately. Although it's outside your usual area, please consider Ape. This dif shows a large number of entirely time-wasting edits throughout the whole of February. Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Good call. There seem to be certain times of the year when major topic articles suddenly are hit by waves of vandalism or bizarre non-constructive edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Botany genus question

Look at Sarcodes and Monotropa (both genus articles). At the very top of the article, the title Monotropa is italicized, but in the Sarcodes article this is not so. On wikipedia which way is it supposed to be and how do I change it to make it so? I made some edits to Sarcodes too.512bits (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If the name is omitted from the taxobox, the title is italicized.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so what other ranks in taxonomy get italicized? I also guess there's a way to do it without the taxobox.512bits (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There's some detailed information at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Italicization. --Melburnian (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.512bits (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Book of Habakkuk

Here you changed BC to BCE in the article Book of Habakkuk. This is not allowed, as it says in WP:ERA. Performing a huge string of short edits (like you did) instead of performing just a few is also frowned upon if I'm not mistaken. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

The policy on dates is not to prefer either one or the other. There is nothing about such a change being "not allowed". The change that I performed made the internal dating fora=mat consistent, which is what WP:ERA states should be done. There is no policy about the number of edits; you are mistaken about that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The entire article had been using AD/BC since its creation until you decided all by yourself to change it to CE/BCE. WP:ERA prohibits such an action. Instead, you're meant to provide a very good reason on the talk page for changing it. However, you've never written anything on that talk page. You broke the rule and now you're making it worse by starting an edit war in the article and telling me off on my talk page even though you broke the rule, not me. Your excuse of "I made it consistent" is wrong anyway, since the format was already entirely consistent. You're wrong; just stop being difficult and stop messing up the encyclopaedia. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC))

No, the article was a mix of BC and BCE before my edit, and I changed only the article summary to match the body of the article. It is you who chose to make a wholesale "illegal" change without discussion to start an edit war. Please do not engage in such behavior again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by an uninvolved editor - For the record, I've had to warn WP Editor 2011 previously for edit-warring,[1] but I don't believe he was entirely at fault here. Prior to your December 5 edits at Book of Habakkuk, the article contained 3 occurrences of BC and 2 of BCE.[2] Two of the mentions were links to 7th century BC and 598 BC. The first version of the article used "B.C.", not BCE. By the time you first edited the article in April 2006, the article contained 2 BC references and no mentions of BCE.[3] Using the same criteria we use for determining date formats and English variants, "BC" was clearly the established form, especially given the links to 7th century BC and 598 BC. However, in a string of 107 edits in December 2011 that was interrupted only once by a reversion of the "BC" to "BCE" changes,[4] you added 4 BCEs and replaced 1 "BC" with "BCE".[5] I can see how WP Editor 2011 thought this was a breach of WP:ERA as BC was the established format and you had sought no consensus to change that, as is required by WP:ERA. Arguing that your changes were made because "the article was a mix of BC and BCE before my edit" and saying "The change that I performed made the internal dating fora=mat[sic] consistent, which is what WP:ERA states should be done" falls flat, because the article is still a mix of BC and BCE, due to the existence of 7th century BC and 598 BC. For consistency, as required by WP:ERA, the article should really be changed to use one format. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The struck-through content above has been posted at Talk:Book of Habakkuk#BC/BCE. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't think it was a bit inappropriate to block an editor for edit warring, when you yourself were the one engaged in an edit war with the editor you blocked? This appears to be a violation of WP:INVOLVED, namely using your administrative tools to stop another editor from reverting your own edits. However, perhaps there are details about this that I'm overlooking, but would you please mind clarifying this? - SudoGhost 02:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to this, I'm afraid the statement that "WP Editor 2011 did not make that article consistent with the original version." isn't accurate. The original version of the article is not from December, it is much older than that. The original version did in fact use only BC, not a mix of the two, therefore WP Editor 2011 did make the article consistent with the original version. In fact, until you inserted BCE into the article in 2008, the article had consistently used BC for seven years.

Aside from that insertion, the only other mention of BCE in the "pre-December" version of the article was an arbitrary change from BC to BCE, which according to WP:ERA, should not have been made. While the statement that it was using BC consistently from 12 December isn't accurate, it is accurate to say that the article consistently used BC prior to your lone insertion of BCE, the only other instance of BCE being an WP:ERA violation. Therefore I can certainly see the logic that BC is the "consistent" version, and is undoubtedly the oldest and most consistent version. - SudoGhost 05:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the lone change by an IP, and frankly don't see that it's relevant for my actions. Few editors would scan four years of an article's history for such details before standardizing style. An arbitrary choice to standardize was made, and an editor now wants to change that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ERA says "Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page." Your changes didn't standardise the article, as there were still two uses of "BC". --AussieLegend (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are merely acting in an administrative capacity, you are indifferent between BCE and BC on the article, correct, and you would have no problem with someone putting the whole article as "BC." Please confirm that here. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am indifferent in that either system is acceptable to me, and I have used both systems in the past. I do believe, now that a discussion has opened, that there are reasons to use one system over the other for this particular article, but I do not believe that one system should be favored over the other generally. However, the AN/I discussion has already been closed, before either person involved was able to participate, so the point is moot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WP Editor 2011 wouldn't have been able to participate, as you had blocked him. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he would have, as he was unblocked long before the discussion was closed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I believe you have violated WP:INVOLVED. What can you do to convince me you will no longer use your tools in content disputes in which you have an opinion, to enforce your opinion? Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already replied above (edit conflict). The AN/I on the issue was pushed through without my participation; it is now closed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. I'm willing to file an WP:RFAr, given that you had an opinion on something, you reverted to your preferred version, and then blocked your partner in edit warring. Please convince me this will not continue, or resign your tools. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You are free to take any actions elsewhere that you wish, but the matter has already been resolved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't, the AN/I discussion is ongoing, and the WP:INVOLVED issue has not been resolved. - SudoGhost 14:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been to the AN/I board, and the issue was closed. No further discussion is to be posted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue was closed because the issue was thought resolved, then you commented about how you weren't WP:INVOLVED, which changed the fact that the issue was thought resolved. Although you are of course not required to comment there, it is not up to you to determine if "further discussion is to be posted", because the issue has not "already been resolved", nor is the the issue closed. - SudoGhost 14:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just to clarify - you still believe your initial block was valid, you believe at the time you made that block, you were not involved and were merely acting in an administrative capacity, and if you had to do it over again, you'd make that block again? Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so it's known, the individual who was unblocked, WP_Editor_2011, is going around warning everyone who has ever changed BC to BCE, or AD to CE, even when the edits were yeras ago. I don't know if this is considered acceptable or not because I am not as knowledgable as I ought to be about Wikipedia policies, but here is what I posted about it to the first admin whose page I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toddst1#WP_Editor_2011 J'onn J'onzz (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See here. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SudoGhost 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this ANI thread has been reopened, and you should consider participating in it. I briefly considered re-adding the post you made there, which you removed when you saw it was closed, but that isn't my place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Azure

Please make sure that the 400+ links to the heraldic article that were broken by the move are repaired. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. By moving the dab page to azure, that pretty much resolves the navigation issue. If there are further issues though, please feel free to drop me a note.

On a semi-related issue, I see you have been working on some merges of your own, and I hope that you check the links at azure(color) to make sure that all are correctly sent to shades of blue. (I see that you have already been working on the redirects.)- jc37 02:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that creates the problem. The articles previously pointing to Azure were heraldry and flag articles that correctly pointed to the article about the heraldic tincture. Now, all of those links point to a disambiguation page, and the links therefore need to be adjusted accordingly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but as all the different pages related to azure are clearly linked on the dab page, any editor coming there looking for the heraldry tincture will assuredly find the page they are looking for. It's common practice. And part of why we have dab pages.

However on the converse, the merges you are working on do notinvolve a dab page. So fixing links in some way would be appropriate in this case, I would think. - jc37 02:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Links should normally not point to disambiguation pages, and such linking is considered an error, so the links do need to be corrected. Additionally, you've introduced an extra step between the reader and access to the information. I myself have made no mergers yet; I have proposed one only. I made a move of a section and corrected the redirect links. If links have been hard coded into the linking articles, then a bot will be needed to correct those. This is what redirects were designed for, but some editors refuse to use them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving a fairly significant section to another page, in particular since it involves several other previous merges, would indeed be a merge.

As for the rest, that section is talking about future linking. That said, if you feel I am breaking the "honour code", so be it. I don't think that this is really worth debating. Especially since I have a feeling that more than a few of the links are not intended for the heraldry page. So with a mish mosh of varied links, it is all the more reason of having the dab page in place. If you still disagree, you are welcome to check out the links yourself. - jc37 03:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Guideline is about creating links to disambiguation pages, which is what you did with your move. The Guideline explicitly states that links should point to relevant articles; that's why so many people have to spend time running bots to help repair disambiguation links. If you're not going to follow Guidelines, at least be straight up about it. And if you are going to create messes for other editors to clean up, and refuse to clean up after your own messes, then you really shouldn't be considering yourself a member of the Association of Structurist Wikipedians, for which one of the central tenets is structuring information both for readers and for future editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion... - jc37 05:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I thought your note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Azure wasn't a bad idea. - jc37 05:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Layout of cladograms

I should have remembered to check the cladogram I changed at Bryophytes in the other class of browser (e.g. Safari) – I'm a Mac Firefox user which displays cladograms "properly". Reversing the other one makes them ok in both classes of browser, as far as I can tell (and there was no reason to have the two cladograms different ways round which could have misled naive readers). It seems that cladograms look best in the Safari/Chrome/Opera group of browsers if the branching increases downwards, i.e. generally if they are drawn with the earliest diverging groups at the top, whereas there's a tendency to draw them the other way up, with the latest diverging groups at the top, which, I agree, can look horrible in this group of browsers. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've now updated the documentation at Template:Clade#Browser differences; I hope it's clear. So if you notice any cladograms which look particularly bad in Safari, you can draw the creator's attention to this section. I think I've often drawn cladograms the 'wrong' way round in the past. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Chase & Reveal classification articles

I've only recently come across a set of articles created by User:Nonenmac for taxa in the Chase & Reveal classification, e.g. Equisetopsida sensu lato, Magnoliidae sensu Chase & Reveal, Lycopodiidae, etc. I started trying to fix what I saw as some of their problems, which range from the trivial (use of zoology-style authorities), to slightly more misleading ones (wikilinks from Chase & Reveal names which lead to articles based on traditionally defined groups where the wikilinked name is not discusssed), to the most misleading (no comment on the degree to which this classification has been taken up or used by anyone else).

I noticed that you had commented on the talk pages of a couple of the articles, and thought I'd ask for your views before doing any more. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, I don't think these taxa are noteworthy enough to have their own articles. They've been published in a single paper, and aren't being used by either the scientific community or textbook publishers. All of the groups have a "synonym" (for the clade) with a full and proper article. Having an article about another word for the same topic is counter to what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. So what can be done? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the additional name discussed in the article for that group. A discussion at WP:PLANTS might be useful in creating a project guideline for merging content or allowing distinct articles when the topic is really just a name. We've been through a round of this sort of thing before back when I first joined, so putting something in writing with a rationale could solve the issue both now and in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've now raised this at WT:PLANTS#Do taxon names deserve articles?. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

-aceae

I changed the two dozen articles I added that to, per your observation. I've heard various pronunciations, and the OED would suggest that a disyllabic pronunciation is more formal, but if -/eisi:/ (full vowel!) is that dominant, we should probably just go with that.

You might want to review Taxonomic_rank#Terminations_of_names, which gives my attempt at pronunciation for all the regular endings (though I left out optional syllables). — kwami (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Any comment on the extra syllable? — kwami (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've usually heard it pronounced as two syllables, and can't imagine how it could be heard as a single one. Perhaps I'm not understanding your question. However, there are a number of suspect pronunciations in the table you pointed to. I'll try to attend to those this weekend. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant as three syllables rather than two: /ˈ-eɪ.si.iː/ (what the OED would transcribe as /ˈ-eɪsɪiː/). — kwami (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense now. I've heard it both ways, and have said it both ways, but think that the two-syllable pronunciation is the one I hear (and use) more often. Mind you, I'm hearing it from academic botanists rather than gardners or botany club members, but that's as a result of my more frequent contact with academic circles. I couldn't say how prevalent the three-syllable pronunciation would be outside of academic circles. To my ears, the three-syallble pronunciation sounds more affected and Classically-conscious. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have the same impression about it sounding a bit affected. — kwami (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert only when necessary

I noticed that you reverted my edit on azure. Please see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary: reverting drives away editors. ENeville (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, but an edit summary should accurately describe what happened in an edit. This is the case with my edit summaries. Thank you for finally opening a discussion about the issue, but it would have been better to discuss first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The comment about "finally" opening discussion seems inaccurate and baiting. In any case, the negative effects of repeated reversions remain. I am concerned about a lack of appreciation for this point, but unfortunately also concerned whether I can say anything that would develop it. ENeville (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I am concerned by apparent disruptive editing that I believe I have witnessed on Azure and Talk:Azure:

1. Edit warring
2. Personal attack
3. Tendentious editing, placing one perspective beyond all others
4. Gaming the system, e.g. in the second paragraph of discussion (comment at 06:49, 21 April), purporting to respond to a point raised (distracting language as a dab page issue), but actually sidestepping it entirely
5. Avoiding consensus building by repeatedly dodging questions or requests for proposals toward compromise
6. Pettifogging
7. Rejecting community input
8. A general failure to "get the point"

ENeville (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that your concerns are unfounded, as many of your points appear to me to be either fabrications or misinterpretations of policy. Some of your concerns apply to others involved in the discussion, but not to me. To help illustrate this, please clarify two of the above points for me: (1) What personal attack did you see in the discussion? (2) Pettifogging. What do you mean by this, and where is it discussed on the page you have linked to? I could not find it, and so am not certain what you mean.

The fact that I am actively engaged in the ongoing discussion, and am seeking to have my point understood, shows that I am not dodging questions. I do therefore believe that you are mistaken in many, if not all, of the points you have enumerated above. I await your reply on the two specific points I have raised in the previous paragraph, as I believe they will form the start of a clarifying discussion.

Do be aware that I intend to abide by consensus, but would appreciate it if people who disagree with my point of view could address the valid points that I have raised in counter argument, rather that simply dismissing them as if they had not been made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

All of my enumerations are considered, and I stand by them. I don't see them as misapplied.

1. Personal attack: as I noted at the time, your statement of 22:04, 22 April, "I don't understand why you are so strongly opposed to the extra three letters," belittled my position.

2. Pettifogging: numerous subordinate technical concerns were repeatedly raised in objection while neglecting progress toward the main goal of finding an acceptable solution. I identified the issue by name in my comment of 00:15, 28 April, and I find that your statements in the discussion are replete with it. Not once, prior to my statement about disruptive editing, did you offer anything suggesting the possibility of a mutually acceptable solution.

As to dodged questions, mine inviting suggestion for more accessible language were repeatedly ignored, despite the copiousness of statements posted in subsequence.

I am concerned how productive expansion on my part will be with my observations viewed as "unfounded" or "fabrications" or "misinterpretations". Note that my concerns expressed above about reversion were apparently dismissed. Inquiry with someone else whose opinion you hold in higher esteem may be more illuminating, particularly for subtler points.

Your characterization that it was others who were dismissing your points underscores my concern about receptiveness. I suggest you reread the discussion from the beginning (as I have, a number of times now). To me it is apparent that it was yourself that was repeatedly unresponsive to points raised. Again, you would probably give more weight to the input of someone else on such matters, someone not involved in that discussion.

I bring this issue up, difficult though it may be, because a hospitable atmosphere is key to WP's long-term vitality. The number of WP English editors has fallen by about a third since 2007. ENeville (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) "I don't understand" means that I don't understand. You may choose to feel whatever emotions you wish about my ability to understand, but my inability to understand does NOT constitute a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA to find out what constitutes a personal attack. Accusing people of making such attacks when they have not is inappropriate.

(2) The fact that you feel my concerns are not worth bothering over is not a problem on my part. If someone were to accuse you of raising "numerous subordinate technical concerns", would you consider that to belittle your position? Based on what you said in (1), do you think that it is OK to belittle other's opinons and points? And you have not identified the place where this is discussed on the disruptive editing page, as I requested.

If I'm replying to your comments, then I'm not ignoring them. Disagreeing with you is not the same as ignoring you or being unresponsive. To borrow a phrase from The Princess Bride, "I do not think those words mean what you think they mean." And I still don't understand how so many people can be so fussy over three extra letters in a disambiguation page description. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

1. The statement was "I don't understand why you are so strongly opposed to the extra three letters". I really doubt my opinion will count for any more than it did before, so I do suggest that you inquire with someone whose input you do value. You might also ask about the related statement "And I still don't understand how so many people can be so fussy over three extra letters in a disambiguation page description."

2.

a. I'm sorry, I did miss your question about pettifogging in relevant guidelines. Please see Wikipedia:Gaming the system, which relates to disruptive editing, and the meaning section which refers to pettifogging.

b. I appreciate that characterizing arguments as being "numerous subordinate technical concerns" is critical, but I submit that it doesn't carry the same personal effect as the quotes above. And no, I don't support belittling. Again, I think input from someone else would be the best way to discover new information here.

Regarding replying, a statement that follows another's but doesn't address their points is not responsive. When points are neglected repeatedly, it clearly becomes ignoring.

Re your frustration, people are crazy. But we're all one of 'em.  :) ENeville (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Same topic?

Aren't Fern ally and Pteridophyte actually about exactly the same group, the old Pteridophyta as per Sporne's 1966 book (referenced in Fern ally)? Shouldn't they be merged? I know that you usually keep an eye on articles in this area of botany. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No. "Fern ally" excludes the traditional leafy ferns, while "pteridophyte" includes them. The term "fern allies" is also usually restricted to just the three traditional modern groups (lycophytes, horsetails, & whisk ferns), while "pteridophyte" includes all fossil organisms with a similar life cycle (rhyniophytes, calamitaleans, etc.). --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right; I looked at the articles too quickly. The names for the vascular cryptograms have changed so much that I get confused. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco Wiknic 2012

	San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park
	You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. —Max Klein {chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite.

Deciduous

This is equivalent with French caduc, not with French feuillu. The change in link is wrong. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello EncycloPetey, thanks for your correction. I can explain why bots modify in that way. fr:caduc is an disambiguation page, and en:Deciduous not, so bot ignore the link. But listing other interwikis, bots can find fr:feuillu (introduce around 2006 in some articles like es:Caducifolio which has en:Deciduous too) and thus modifiy a disambiguation page to a real article. --Sisyph (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this a serious flaw in the way that bots work. I wish people would check the edits made by their bots rather than letting faulty ones run all the time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Sphenophyllales

Seriously? If I remember correctly, I was the one who put that information there in the first place. It really doesn't seem to contribute anything valuable. It was a dead link. I also don't know where those other genera go. I did it to provide a more user-friendly access to the genera. This is the only way I could come up with to do it (unless you've got another idea). How about if I refer to it in the Sphenophyllum taxobox? You hardly ever see anything about the family anyways. All you ever really see is the order and the genera. Ushakaron (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Due to conflicting sources, the families cannot be listed. An explanation is given below, but it is partially just an expression of bewilderment.
  I don't know if there is only the one family. I don't know what genera belong to it either. I've looked and looked. There doesn't seem do be a plain and simple document of the taxonomy anywhere. One person says one thing. Another person says something else. All I know is that Sphenophyllaceae is a valid family. I'm assuming Sphenophyllum is a member of that family because that would only make sense. I don't know what other genera are part of that family. I know there are other genera in Sphenophyllales, but I don't know which families they belong to. Encyclopedia Britannica has a page on Sphenophyllales. "2 families: Sphenophyllaceae and Cheirostrobaceae." Zipcodezoo makes no mention of Sphenophyllales, and instead uses Bowmanitales. On their page, they list Cheirostrobaceae along with Eviostachyaceae and Bowmanitaceae as families, but not Sphenophyllaceae. Taxinomicon is the same way. Those are really the only other places I can find on Google that even mention Cheirostrobaceae. I can't find a list of genera that belong to any of the families. Bowmanitales is definitely synonymous with Sphenophyllales, but I'm not sure if that guarantees Bowmanitaceae is synonymous with Sphenophyllaceae (not that I can find a list of genera for either of them). Then there's Cheirostrobaceae which almost certainly contains the genus Cheirostrobus, but who knows what else? Then Eviostachyaceae. I can't find much on Google. Perhaps it's part of a different classification system? I can find places that list some genera for Sphenophyllaceae, but they also place the family in Equisetales, so I know it's a different classification system. AAARRGGHHHH!!!! I have no idea! What you're asking is impossible given what I have to work with. I can find information about some species in the genera. That's it. The genera must be listed somewhere. Otherwise the users won't be able to access them, and what's the point of an encyclopedia that users can't use. If you have any information on this subject please share it. I'd love to know it. I am at a dead end. Without those missing links, the way I changed the page is the only way to present the information. The listing of the family there may have been the only information we had, but it was basically useless information. A dead end. I have removed it and replaced it with something that can be explored further.
  Ushakaron (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Hamatophyton verticillatum

It's the only species I know of at the moment. I don't know if it's the only member of its genus. With the fossil stuff, the taxonomy is such a mess. One can never be sure. The source did refer to the genus by itself, but made no mention of other species. I figured it's better to create the genus page for now until more information is available.
I must say, you are really fast with checking this stuff. Ushakaron (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Fossil Horsetails

I have obtained a copy of the book I have been referencing. There is good info about species in the other genera I listed on Sphenophyllales. Like Hamatophyton, it only talks about one species. Google search only pulled up Hamatophyton verticillatum, but with fossils, you can't be sure that means there aren't other members of the genus. I guess I'm just giving you a head's up about what's going on so you don't have to wonder. If you think there is a better way to proceed, let me know.
Also, I hope I didn't seem like I was b*tching at you before. I just tend to be blunt.
Goodnight to you, or if you're on the other side of the world, good morning. Whatever. haha Ushakaron (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ginkgoales

It was a redirect because some wise guy assumed there was only one family. There are more families. I can source them. Since there is more than one family, it should not be a redirect page. I've worked with the auto taxoboxes before. They're really pretty simple once you get it. I just haven't done them for a while, although I can't find anything I'm doing wrong. Ushakaron (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've created the templates for the other families, but they won't show up as children. They're listed as children in the category here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Immediate_children/Ginkgoales

They just won't show up in the taxobox. It's absolutely maddening. I was hoping somebody could find where my error was. I'm just going to use a normal taxobox for the moment.Ushakaron (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Not quite sure what you mean. I went and found the Ginkgoaceae template and accessed the Ginkgoales template from there. It had it so when you clicked on Ginkgoales, it would take you to Ginkgoaceae. I might have changed that first. Then, I went and added the children. If you go to the Ginkgoales page, I have created a traditional taxobox with the other families. We'll see what happens. Perhaps you're right about giving the server some time.Ushakaron (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is: if you create the children first, and then edit the parent template, the server will seek out children templates immediately. If you do not edit the parent after creating the children, then there will be a server lag of an hour (or even a day) before the parent template is checked again by the server and children are recognized. Any template that calls on other templates will not immeditely register a change in those other templates unless it is edited. Otherwise, there is a delay in the response from the software. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. I will keep that in mind. Thanks. Also, about the Karkeniaceae page, I created that just to see if creating a page would get it to be recognized is a child of Ginkgoales. Ginkgoales does have some text (one sentence), but as I read my book more, I will get more information. Soon, all the different families will have some information posted. (I am aware that articles need text. I was just in a hurry and figured nobody would be looking at it anyways yet)Ushakaron (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at SuggestBot's talk page.
Message added 15:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Plant List and taxoboxes

Thank you for alerting me to the unreliability of The Plant List. I admit that i did have my suspicions about it. Where are the conventions for what to put in the taxobox? 66.91.100.63 (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The taxobox conventions are not all spelled out in any one place, but we don't list Embryophyte as a taxon. The major groups that have traditionally been treated as divisions (e.g., Lycopodiophyta, Pinophyta) are the highest rank usually included below the rank of Plantae, and for angiosperms that equates to "angiosperms". Until the scientific community reaches a clear consensus otherwise, that's unlikely to change. Otherwise, we use APG III for angiosperms, Smith for monilophytes, and Goffinet for mosses. Some groups have highly unstable classifications (e.g. liverworts) and so no set classification is yet in use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dipterocarpus costatus

Hello EncycoPetey, yes I am new to editing Wikipedia, though I have worked as an academic archaeobotanist for many years. So I was a little surprised at the guilty until proven innocent "Copyright Violation" notice. Why? 3 reasons:

1 I comprehensively referenced all material, just as in my academic work, published by publishing institutions, published in monographs and academic journals;

2 yes I used many of the same phrases as one of the original sources, they are botanical descriptors, can you tell me why botanical descriptors should be altered to please Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia, "no original research", so if including botanical and ecological descriptors relying on rigourously applied criteria, how do I not use the same terms as source material;

3. it is an academic website I was quoting from, not a commercial site, they themselves acknowledge that they are freesource and built on the research of others, they cite the academic literature that they derived their material from, therefore whose copyright am I violating? I draw your attention to http://www.biotik.org/res_technical.html

So, guilty until proven innocent, I have contacted Dr Edelin, project coordinator, to clarify the situation. I doubt his main work tool is web-trawling bots and that he is busy with other work, how long before you make an un-investigated deletion of my contribution? Brunswicknic (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied at the duplicate of this posting on Talk:Dipterocarpus costatus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion at Talk:Coat of arms of the Holy See#Dispute might interest you. Esoglou (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you please intervene in this discussion and tell me whether I am wrong in distinguishing a coat of arms from an emblem. Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Italian and episcopal heraldry / insignia are outside the scope of my resources and personal knowledge. I did have a look when you first contacted me, but could find nothing helpful. I'd like to have helped, but just don't have either books or knowledge to assist in this instance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Tree

There has been some controversy over at the article Tree. I thought the article that existed before August 1st was not very good and completely rewrote it in my userspace. Another editor took exception to my new version which he describes as rubbish, repeatedly stating that 2/3 of it was faulty. Would you be able, as a member of WikiProject Plants, to look over the article, point out errors I have made and make suggestions? I took a view that anyone who looked up "Tree" in wikipedia did not want anything too technical. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Division or phylum?

Yes, I should have done what you did at Moss and restored the original. One or two editors seem to have a bit of a campaign to replace "division" by "phylum". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Velum disambiguation

Hello EncycloPetey, I saw that you had changed the links for velum at Isoëtes and Isoetales back to the disambiguation page. Since we aren't supposed to have links to disambiguation pages (WP:INTDAB), and there is no article for that use of velum, and the articles had a descriptor of "a thin, transparent covering" I thought it was best to unlink them. I suppose the best approach would be to write an article or section on that use of velum and link to it; but I haven't the background to do that. What do you think we should do? Thanks. SchreiberBike (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We should have at least a short description on the disambiguation page and either an article linked or else a section of another article. The velum is simply any thin, transparent covering, it is a specific morphological feature of quillworts, just as petals are for flowering plants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But disambiguation pages aren't the place for descriptions. Disambiguation pages "are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term" (MOS:DAB). I think the descriptor of "a thin, transparent covering" for velum meets the reader's need. Thanks. SchreiberBike (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The explanation does not cover the topic. An article, or part of article will need to be created. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. For now shall we change them to the eventual article or redirect name with red links for Velum (Isoëtes) or perhaps Velum (quillworts)? Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The name Velum (botany) would be better, as there are extinct relatives that possessed the same structure. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes. You can see where the red link is used by this link. Thanks. SchreiberBike (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've "reported" you

Here
--89.79.88.109 (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In case it's not clear from this cryptic note, the link is to an ANI thread. Please respond there the next time you're online. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just weighing in after seeing the ANI thread, I strongly recommend responding to it as soon as possible. The consensus among participants thus far is that there are some legitemate concerns regarding your use of the protect button in content disputes, specifically as to whether or not such actions are in compliance with WP:INVOLVED, and that this is not an isolated incident. Kurtis (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  I find it odd that several people have asserted that I was "involved" in this case, without actually providing any explanation or evidence as to why they think that. Is this what Wikipedia has become? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Several people have explained why they believe you are "involved"; please re-read the ANI thread, and the wording of WP:ADMIN. You are not enforcing WP:MOS, you are enforcing your interpretation of WP:MOS, with which it is possible to disagree in good faith. In other words, this is a content dispute. You are enforcing your interpretation by use of page protection, a tool unavailable to non-admins. You have previously used blocks to enforce your interpretation. Do I understand correctly you do not plan to alter your behavior? In the previous ANI thread, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but it appears that this is a pattern of behavior, and that you are unwilling to stop. I am beginning to assemble diffs for an ArbCom request for your desysop, but there is no sense in doing that if you plan to listen to the feedback of everyone at ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, a couple of people have asserted that I was "involved". No one has explained why they think so, and one person has categorically stated that I was not involved. Please do not tell me what I am doing, as that is unhelpful. Tell me rather why, but please do so in the discussion forum set aside for this topic. Splitting this discussion across multiple pages will make it harder both for myself and for others to follow and respond. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a content dispute on that page, as you were applying the Manual of Style to the article in a disagreement with another editor. Even if your interpretation of the MoS was completely agreed upon by the community, this is not "a purely administrative role", it is the role of an editor. Therefore when you use administrative tools in situations that you have also edited as an editor, this makes you involved. You have a disagreement with another editor about the specific content. This dispute between you and that other editor was not a "purely administrative role", applying the Manual of Style to an article is not an "administrative role" in any way, interpreting the guideline and applying it to an article is purely editorial. It wasn't as an administrator that these edits were made, and in this editorial dispute between two editors, you used administrative tools to gain the advantage in a content dispute, and this isn't the first time this has happened. That makes you an involved administrator. - SudoGhost 05:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request

EncycloPetey, I am afraid your actions here and your responses so far are deeply unsatisfactory. I am filing an Arbcom request in this matter now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, the arbitration request is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#EncycloPetey. Please submit your statement when you are next online. I've also added a section header, for your ease of reference. AGK [•] 11:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, before you've even had a chance to log in and respond the case has already achieved a net 4 in favor of acceptance. The case can go live even before you can respond! Isn't this fun? You spend five years being an administrator, have two WP:AN/I threads separated by five months, and without any other steps in the dispute resolution process you're being dragged before ArbCom. Absolutely, categorically unreal. EncycloPetey, if recent history is any measure you can expect ArbCom to remove your administrator status post haste, and possibly ban you from the project for a time, after which you'll have to grovel, accept your guilt, lay out your plans to never err again, and agree to be under editing restrictions. ArbCom has become grossly obtuse, and you're the latest victim. I feel for you. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I am sorry. I don't know, you or your work but I saw your goodbye at the Plants Project. If your intention is really goodbye -- as in leaving the project -- it seems bad all around, but perhaps there is an interim measure? Perhaps just leave admin behind (goodbye to it) for the time being and just contribute? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I echo Alanscottwalker's comments. Just resign your sysop bit. To be honest and certainly non-accusatory, you don't use your sysop bit very much; about once a week on average. You have much more productivity in the editing realm, with more than 30,000 edits. Being a sysop is a dramafest waiting to happen. Just resign. In this case, resigning under a cloud means you can't get it back without an RfA but so what? I am not an administrator, and don't want to be. It hasn't affected my ability to edit. Resign your sysop bit and this problem vanishes, without having to waste time defending yourself. Defending yourself is futile now anyway, with the Arb case about to go live. I like your statement "I feel railroaded and surrounded by hungry sharks" Very apropos. What they want is your sysop bit. So give it to them. You don't need it anyway. If the sharks wanted your surfboard, would you give them your legs instead? Just not worth it. Give them the surfboard and end this before it gains a full head of steam (mixing metaphors again!). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm on record saying this shouldn't have gone as far ArbCom and I think there's a risk of you abandoning Wikipedia and walking away. Speaking personally, a comment along the lines of "I did protect an article I'd just been editing content in, and I see how that could have appeared as problematic. I'll take it to the talk page but I'd advise another admin to keep an eye on this IP's civility." would probably have you out of this whole palava, to be honest. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, my faith in ArbCom doesn't extend that far. They've got their hooks into EncycloPetey now to the tune of 7-0 in favor of accepting the case. A "mea culpa" isn't going to do anything at this point. They want their pound of flesh, even if they're completely undermining the entire dispute resolution process. The dispute resolution process is now WP:AN/I --> ArbCom. Everything else matters not now, and once they want a case, there's no more stopping it than doing do with a toothpick against a freight train. The best out here, with the least amount of effort, is to resign adminship and keep on editing. Second best is walking away from the project entirely. Going along with the ArbCom charade is unproductive. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I would like to add that this is a project-by-project consideration. Whatever happens here does not affect Petey's admin status at Wiktionary, where the process has not grown quite so touchy (and where I doubt it ever will), and where there's always plenty to be done. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not railroaded, a witch hunt, and a confession will get you hung; you have already spoken once to the charges so you won't be pressed, at least. Problematically, you spend far too much time editing and not enough time socializing, couple that with your willingness to monitor articles on topics that the vast majority of administrators have never heard of, and your apparent holding of a full time job outside of editing Wikipedia and it is a wonder you were ever made an administrator. Good luck, and I hope you waste no time on assisting the judges and magistrates of Salem. Eau (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously, having a bunch of editors accuse you of breaching WP:INVOLVED doesn't make you guilty, but it does mean you probably ought to take a deep breath and look back over your record, which I suggest you do. Sit down, read the guideline carefully, and look over the incidents listed in the ArbCom case. Don't get tied up in the question of which content is correct (I expect you'll be validated in most, if not all cases); but ask yourself "Should I have asked another admin for help? Would I feel this was fair if I was on the opposite side? Would I do this again?" Think about it and post what you come up with, whether you feel that some, all, or none of your decisions were correct. Then go edit something technical and obscure like oil body to take the taste out of your mouth. Forget the agendas. If you think you were right, you shouldn't be posting an insincere apology to retain the admin bit. If you think some of your decisions were wrong, you shouldn't clam up for the sake of playing the martyr. Square yourself with your own conscience, and let the rest of Wikipedia take that as it will. Regardless of what you decide, I hope you'll find the spirit to continue editing here; I keenly feel the loss of any editor who can make intelligent commentary on cryptogams. Choess (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration process

EncycloPetey, since you seem to be receiving some conflicting advice from various parties, can I confirm that a case is accepted on the basis that it is something that Arbcom should look into. The vote to accept the case is not a vote on sanctions, so no decision as to the outcome has been taken.

At this stage, a well thought out statement taking in the source of the community concern and suggesting a way forward may still be sufficient to halt any further action. On the request page, User:SilkTork has provided a very good explanation of why this particular issue is such a hot topic now.

I see above that someone has suggested that if you voluntarily handed in the sysop bit, that would be the end of it. While it is your choice as to whether this is even something you want to think about, I believe the commentator has accurately judged the mood of the community. This matter only concerns the use of tools. No-one has raised concerns with your editing generally - you appear to be a good editor, who has made many valuable contributions.

So you see, there are options open to you, even at this point. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Elen - you are presenting this just like a police siege in the US. Two ways out, be shot by the police, or shoot yourself.

Really the page protection was a bad call, but completely understandable. To de-sysop someone over that would be ludicrous, unless they can't see why it was a bad call.

If EncycloPetey agrees it was a mistake, he gets my full support to remain an admin, and if someone wants to "strongly remind him" about something, then fine. Of course my full support would probably completely damn him as far as most of ArbCom is concerned, but it would be there nonetheless.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

Please, Admin is not a bullet; it is more like a burden. And laying the burden down, should be made easy and with support. 'No big deal' and all that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• No one is questioning the quality of your editing. Some of the methods you employ with the admin bit are a little shocking to me at least, but this isn't a statement on your capability as an editor, which appears to be quite good and an asset to Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I wanted to drop by and back-up what Elen said: If you aren't having fun as an admin, in light of the scrutiny and rules attached to the responsibilities, it is entirely acceptable to "hand in" that responsibility, and go back to being an editor. I personally wish more admins would do what User:Iridescent did, and resigned their administrator status for a while to remember what it's like to edit without being able to resort to protection and blocking tools. Again, no one has alleged that you've done anything but good work as an editor, and I'm afraid some folks have been trying to pour gasoline on the situation by suggesting that you're up for some sort of extraordinary sanctions. Feel free to email the committee address if you'd like to discuss the possible ways forward with the committee without such an audience. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to pitch in a thought towards this discussion: what about the rest of us? EP does a great deal of dull necessary work in organizing plant-related articles - and, yes, this is admin work, this is deleting bad titles and moving and merging duplicate pages and similar matters. If he is not around to do this work, and is not allowed to have the tools to do this work, most likely it doesn't get done and the quality of the encyclopedia suffers for it. Otherwise, other admins are going to need to pick up the burden of learning correct botanical nomenclature to be confident that we're setting things right, and to perform all of these deletions and page moves and history merges. I hope a solution can be found that allows EP to continue carrying out these tasks which, fortunately for the rest of us, interest him. bd2412 T 03:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking through the recent log, it looks like most of the recent moves done do not require any administrative tools. Regardless, no individual contributor is so essential that consistent poor behavior will be tolerated. I don't think a pattern of inappropriate blocks and page protections should be excused so that an editor doesn't have to occasionally use RM or request a history merge. Between abuse of administrative tools that potentially drive away editors, and having to ask an admin for an RM, I think the second option is by far the least disruptive to Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 03:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That is exactly why there needs to be a third option that allows productive editors to continue using editing tools such as page deletion and history merging, even if there are challenges raised to their use of anti-vandalism tools such as blocks and page protection. bd2412 T 13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the principle needs to be that no administrator is so worthless as to be deserving of being tossed off the project for making a few errors. Lynch mobs are fun and all, but the key problem is there's a victim. Regardless, it's all a moot point. EP seems to have taken a hike (and I don't blame him). He said goodbye, and hasn't edited since, though I grant it has been just two days. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with making errors. But there is something wrong with repeatedly making the same errors, refusing to accept they are errors, and refusing to listen to a large number of people saying they are errors. And nobody here wants EncycloPetey "tossed off the project" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
      • As has been brought up on the case request page, this has happened with other, shall we say, more esteemed admins on the project. Response? Nothing. Here we have EP, an admin typically operating well beneath the radar, who has been an admin for five years, who gets into a dispute and BOOM it's all the way up to ArbCom. Better yet, even before he's had a chance to respond to the case, ArbCom's already rushed just as fast as they can to accept the case, achieving net 4 in favor of acceptance before he logs in again. That's about as clear as you can get without typing in words. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I do understand what you mean, and I certainly don't want EncycloPetey to leave us - he's a great contributor, and I regret not emphasizing how much respect I have for his contributions earlier. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Thank you! I do understand the view of others who have been (or are) on the other end of the spectrum. There is no question that EP has used his tools improperly. I'm just deeply troubled by the responses EP has received. Looking through the case, he's been called incompetent, abusing the community, a self centered diva, destroying community confidence, and a liability. This, over what apparently are six uses of admin tools. That constitutes less than 2% of his admin actions. So, 98% of the time he's apparently doing just fine, but the community is ready to string him up from the nearest tree? Enough people tell ANYone they're a piece of crap and that person will eventually get irritated. I don't blame EP in the slightest for wanting to leave, and he sure as hell isn't being a diva for doing so. The people insulting him should be brought up short and warned. Instead, ArbCom's rushing...absolutely rushing...to join the lynch mob. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• It's not overly complicated. Simply make a definitive statement "I will not use admin tools on articles I've edited" and the community will say Okay, cool, let's go back to what we were doing. Nobody Ent 12:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I think EP could have acted a bit better on the case, simply saying I won't use the tools on articles I have edited can be a little hard when you have a lot of edits like EP and Myself. With over 100, 000 edits across several thousand articles, many of which are FA and or in the public eye, that could be very hard. As other users have suggested I also agree that this user should do everything in their power to keep out of Arbcom. Some comments have been made that its not that bad but the Arbcom's mission, whether I agree with the end results of cases or not, does not grant them the requirement of being benevolent to editors so if the case is accepted its just going to force a negative outcome on the user and likely ruin their attitude for editing. Which would be a sincere shame IMO.

@EP, I know that you have been an admin for quite a while and have done a lot of good that many just aren't seeing at the moment, but I hope that no matter what the outcome you continue editing. I recently attempted RFA myself for the 2nd time andn although I think I would make a fine admin, the community feels otherwise so I continue to edit. In the end, I enjoy editing and if the community doesn't want me to do more, to use my skills and to help out then that's fine, its really not that big of a deal, there's still lots to do. Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request concerning your permissions

Hi. I'm writing you in my capacity as an individual arbitrator, not on behalf of the committee. Many of our peers have suggested above that you clearly assure the committee, on the arbitration requests page, that you will improve as an administrator. I would like to know whether you are willing to give such an assurance.

In my view, you need to promise that you: 1) will not use your sysop tools in contravention of WP:INVOLVED; and 2) will make a determined effort, when the use of your tools is reviewed by the community, to honour the decision of that review and to recognise when you have erred as an administrator. To some degree, I believe the latter assurance follows the former. Probably, you were only unwilling to recognise your previous administrative decisions were wrong because those wrong decisions were made when you were "involved"—and therefore when your ability to make an neutral decision was impaired. Nevertheless, you would need to resolve to improve in both respects.

Many of the administrators the committee has desysopped have serially or grossly misused their permissions. You are an excellent content contributor, and you use your sysop tools infrequently. I do not believe you are cut from the same cloth as these people, and I would like you to know that (in my view) our concerns are not borne of the wilful efforts of any "cabal" of your opponents to have you desysopped. However, the arbitration request unarguably raised legitimate concerns. I would like us to resolve these concerns with minimal fuss, much preferably while retaining you as a contributor and administrator.

If you are happy to make these assurances, I would like to propose a motion to my colleagues which recognise the concerns about your use of the tools, but suspends the concerns for, say, 3 months. The motion would also say that, absent recidivism by you, the concerns are dismissed in light of your assurances to improve in future. (Plainly, the pervading policy that administrator misconduct may be reviewed at any time by the committee would still apply, and the motion would probably have to restate this.)

My colleagues on the committee and I have put the arbitration request on hold, to allow you some breathing room, but the concerns about your previous actions now require a resolution. The proposal I have set out here is my own preference for reaching a resolution, and I am willing to make it happen if you are. I look forward to your response. Warmest regards, AGK [•] 09:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Echoing what AGK has said. As things stand we are looking at a motion to desysop because of what has been presented to us. A statement, however, showing awareness of why the community are concerned, and a commitment to avoid the same issue, would be helpful. Simply put - you have made a mistake, and what you need to do is say something like: "Ooops - sorry, didn't realise. Won't do that again. Thanks for pointing it out." With such a statement a desysopping could be avoided.

Just bear in mind that we all make mistakes, or step over the line now and again. That's not a big problem. It's the refusal to accept that a mistake has been made that escalates a small problem into a big one. It's not making a mistake that matters, it's how we deal with that mistake afterwards.

I don't think I have seen so many Committee members reach out to someone involved in a case request. That's a measure of the respect that people have for you, and the desire of the Committee that you allow us to resolve this in the fairest way.

The matter is now in your hands; though if you prefer the Committee to remove your tools then you need do nothing more, and we will understand. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Do I read this right? If he "do[es] nothing more", you'll desysop him? He said his goodbye nearly a week ago [6], and hasn't edited since despite being reasonably active before this. Inactivity on his part shouldn't be a reason for ArbCom to yet again leap to a conclusion and desysop him. We already have a procedure in place for desysoping inactive administrators. There is no need to desysop him by summary judgment of malfeasance when he isn't even around to defend himself, nor is there any pressing need of prevention of damage to the project. If ArbCom really wants to have a cordial discussion with EP, they would be well advised to first apologize for leaping to conclusions against him even before he'd had a chance to log in and defend his actions. Second, they shouldn't be threatening to desysop him under this cloud of summary judgment just because he isn't logging in to respond. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Come now. That's granting a liberum veto to anyone, rightfully or wrongfully accused, to escape sanction by walking away from the proceedings and returning in less than a year. This is not a hypothetical case, nor limited to administrators; the name escapes me, but I remember that within the past year or two, there was a lengthy RFC on a user for questionable editing behavior. The editor simply disappeared while the RFC was running; it fizzled due to the lack of constructive response; and they resumed editing shortly after it closed. "Is this a system?"

I have a lot of sympathy for EP, and I'm really going to miss him—we're shorthanded enough on WP:Plants as it is. As an admin who only sporadically uses the bit, I really understand the frustrations imposed by WP:INVOLVED. When a complex, long-running, or technical issue crops up, sometimes you have a choice between admins who understand what's going on, and won't help because they became involved in the process, and admins who don't understand what's going on, and won't help because the issue can't be summed up in three bullet points. And breaching it in obscure low-traffic areas means you're not going to get the sort of epic smacking that would occur if you did it in a controversial area. But...there's pretty strong prima facie evidence that some of his conduct was inappropriate, he's been warned about it at least once, and his last statements indicated, in essence, that he couldn't spare the time to justify his conduct. Right now, the impression I get is that he interprets WP:INVOLVED in a different way than most of the community. Without some kind of explanation, it's hard for a favorably-disposed onlooker like me to go bail for him, so to speak. Choess (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am not suggesting he should get a free pass. I am objecting to him being desysoped under a cloud when he isn't even logging in. ArbCom has no need of rushing to a decision when he isn't even doing anything on the project. Whether or not his conduct was inappropriate is discussing the cart before we've even taken hold of the harness. I think a far more reasonable motion would be that the case is suspended pending his return to active editing, if under such active editing he does not resign as an administrator. ArbCom was grossly out of line for coming at him full bore without there even being the opportunity for him to respond to the case. I am not at all surprised he felt pressured to leave. But, I'm confident ArbCom won't accept any culpability in that. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I agree with you about "under a cloud"; if ArbCom removes EP's bit, it should be clearly stipulated that he retains the option to retrieve it by means short of sitting in the stocks. Letting people trigger a "suspension" in their cases by going off and disappearing strikes me as unnecessary and convoluted, and likely to break down as suspended cases accumulate and the ArbCom clerks or whoever would maintain this miss returning users.
• The deeper problem here is that the only way to deal with administrator conduct is by desysopping, and because RfA is and remains a Big Deal, a desysopping is effectively permanent. So admins can engage in questionable behavior for a long time, because no one wants to nuke them over it (zOMG! admin abuse! ArbCom protects abusers!), and then periodically ArbCom hangs a few of them pour encourager les autres not to wheel war. (zOMG! abuse of admins! ArbCom capricious!) A more sensible approach might be suspending people's bits until they've actively edited for "x" amount of time, rather than having to decide between doing nothing and cashiering them. Choess (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• This deeper problem is an interesting abstract issue, but it doesn't really apply here. EP performed at most 6 questionable admin actions over a five year time span, constituting less than 2% of all his admin actions. Yet, without a full case ArbCom is willing to summarily remove his sysop bit. ArbCom rushes to judgment in accepting the case before EP even has had a chance to respond [7]. It's no small wonder that EP felt "railroaded and surrounded by hungry sharks" [8]. So five minutes later, and now nearly a week ago, he makes his goodbye [9] and leaves the project. But that's not good enough for ArbCom. Now, if he does absolutely nothing at all, ArbCom's going to remove his sysop bit without a case, without submitted evidence, without a defense. ArbCom played a direct role in effectively kicking this long time contributor off the project. They ignored their own principle that administrators are not expected to be perfect, and were determined to desysop him for less than 2% of his admin actions containing errors (even if those are legitimate errors). But it gets better with this latest approach from ArbCom; if EP confesses his sins, he can avoid the summary banishment. AGK and SilkTork have apparently concluded that EP is guilty. If he confesses said guilt and promises not to repeat it, it will cleanse his soul. If he confesses not, or refuses to respond, they will strip him of his sysop bit. I guess when you commit a colossal screwup your only option really is to follow it through to its illogical conclusion, else risk the admitting an error and losing face. ArbCom is never wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• What are you talking about?! If you commit a "colossal screw-up", you admit so. You need to stop trolling. AGK [•] 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Well, Carcharoth (former Arb) has weighed in and suggested that suspension of a case isn't a logistical hardship, so I need to admit to a screw-up, if not a colossal one, on my part. I do agree (per my earlier comments) that the resolution of the case is unduly punitive: forcing EP to re-submit to an RfA is disproportionate. Choess (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree but its sorta mute at this point. EP has stopped editing here for the moment and seems to be focusing their time and efforts into other projects instead. I suspect the user anticipated the outcome and just felt it was better just to move on but hopefully they come back at some point. Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely uninvolved comment

Just resign the buttons and keep editing. No need for drama and you're not being attacked, it's just that the tools have fairly clearly been misused in the course of an editorial disagreement, so plead No Contest and move along... You do good work, keep doing it. best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is the best course of action as well. It's been recommended by myself and others above. But, EP's apparently chosen to leave the project. Can't say I blame him. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Petey, I don't know if you remember me, but once upon a time we were comrades in the WP:PLANTS crowd, back when gajillabytes of text were posted on that project's talk page every week (-- Proper common names??? APG vs. Cronquist??? Should italics be used in taxoboxes??? --): I miss those days, and I assume you probably do too.

I strongly advise you to just accept AGK's proposal, and keep the tools, even if the only thing you use them for is seeing deleted things, thumping the occasional wacko vandal who adds "sexual usage" sections to every vaguely-phallic-shaped vegetable, and deleting the odd hoax here and there. Even if you never feel compelled to create content again, you've done an awful lot of good work over the past several years, and you shouldn't throw away the access you so fully deserve.

Yes, the place has been taken over by the WP:ACRONYM jerks, but it's still our Wikipedia... perhaps the old schoolers will feel welcome again after the folks in charge realize what happened. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! - Wiki Loves Monuments - San Francisco Events

Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco

Hi! As part of Wiki Loves Monuments, we're organizing two photo events in the San Francisco Bay Area and one in Yosemite National Park. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact User:Almonroth with questions or concerns.

There are three events planned:

• September 15, Saturday - A bike ride along San Francisco's waterfront
• September 22-23rd, Saturday-Sunday - Wiki Takes Yosemite
• September 29, Saturday - A sunset and harvest moon bridges, palace, boats and tower tour

We look forward to seeing you there!

You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You're Screwed!

Not that they cared to inform you, but ArbCom has now started voting on a motion to desysop you. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Motion:_EncycloPetey_desysopped. They've:

• Neglected to recognize that there is no impending emergency requiring action on their part.
• Ignored the fact they've heard evidence only from one side.
• Ignored the fact they had a direct hand in your departure from the project, as they were insanely quick to judge against you [10], before you had even logged in again.
• Ignored the existence of prior principles that administrators are not expected to be perfect.
• Attempted to force you to admit guilt under pain of being desysopped (see especially SilkTork's comments above at User_talk:EncycloPetey#Arbitration_request_concerning_your_permissions), and attempted to force you to respond under the same penalty (which they are now acting on).
• Refused to take any action regarding the people who launched attacks against you, calling you incompetent, abusing the community, a self centered diva, destroying community confidence, and a liability.
• Failed to recognize that more than 98% of your administrator actions were without fault.

The gross incompetence being exhibited by ArbCom is sickening. I am deeply sorry you have become a victim of this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Eau (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Its really no surprise that Arbcom is voting for Desysop. Once they accepted the case, that result or worse was bound to happen. Arbcom doesn't accept a case unless they think the person is guilty of something which in itself causes the whole case to be a Drumhead trial. So really once the case is accepted the user can count on being Desysopped, blocked or both. I just don't have much faith in Arbcom decisions anymore myself. Its too much like a Kangaroo court than a fair and just system of checks and balances based on facts and evidence. Kumioko (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft:

1. This is not an emergency action. You appear to have forgotten we afforded EncycloPetey many days to respond to the arbitration request.
2. Evidence? The complaint is legitimate, yet EP has refused to make a statement other than to suggest the complaint is a fabrication of some faction of haters.
3. Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability.
4. You misunderstand (or misrepresent) that principle, and ignore that the principle says "consistently poor judgement may result in [...] suspension or revocation of adminship". I regret to say that, unambiguously, there is 'consistently poor judgement'.
5. We are not judges, and cannot find users in contempt of court. We solve problems, and nothing more.
6. See 4). AGK [•] 15:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Eau (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling. AGK [•] 15:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@AGK

I am going to move onto other tasks since this users fate is pretty much sealed at this point and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

On 1 above, it isn't an emergency action I agree however multiple members of Arbcom have taken every complaint against EP and won't hear anything from EP other than I'm guilty with the user is not required to do whether you like that or not. The problem was easily resolved (and is from what I can see) and everyone has moved on. EP has basically stopped editing so perhaps just letting them take a Wikibreak for a while to cool down is enough. If they come back with a clear head and a clean slate great, if not thats too bad but the auto desysop function will kickin and act accordingly. There really is nothing for Arbcom to do at this point IMO.

On point 2, the complaint is legitimate, but so are the users complaints about the process and how they have been treated. For a user with 5000 edits its easy to not do admin actions on an article you edited, when you have a 100, 000 like EP or 380, 000 like me, its a lot harder.

On point 3 I think every admin does things wrong sometimes and that's life, it happened here, it happened to Puyalup and a variety of others only in the last few weeks. It will happen again, but until Arbcom shows some consistency in how and why they choose the cases rather than give the appearance, correct or not, that they favor some editors over others, there is always going to be an element of scepticism.

On 4 I have not seen a clear pattern, I saw an isolated couple incidents over a multi year period. Maybe you are seeing more than me but I am not seeing a deliberate and repeating cycle of abuse as you infer.

The only comment I can say here is that some less than appropriate comments have come from a couple members of Arbcom. If the Arbcom members are calling users diva's, etc. prior to a determination of guilt (which is also a foregone conclusion once the case is accepted) then that to me is innappropriate.

Again it seems to me as well that Arbcom is choosing the bad over the good actions and assuming bad faith.

You can call it trolling AGK but in the end if the Arbcom doesn't act appropriately, consistently and fairly they are bringing the negative comments on themselves. Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked a related question here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@AGK: (1) Perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough. Kumioko got the gist of what I was saying. There simply isn't a need at this point for ArbCom to act. EP is doing nothing. Desysopping him achieves nothing. There's no pressing need to act. (2) Yes, EP has failed to respond. No small wonder that, given how ArbCom has rushed to push this case through before Brad finally brought you all up short. Of course, that was well after EP had left the project. Why can't ArbCom accept they were in error and admit it, and come at this with neutral eyes? (3) Being accountable doesn't mean that as soon as you make an error you get desysopped. But, that's the attitude ArbCom is taking, despite prior decisions. (4) You "regret to say" there's been consistently poor judgment...over six actions. How the *@#)(# is six incidents, which no one has actually investigated (unless, gosh, ArbCom is investigating on its own and jumping to its own conclusions), make "consistently poor judgment". Let me ask you this, if I find six actions of yours which were questionable, will you agree to step down from ArbCom and resign adminship? (5) Oh yes, you solve problems. But, when a request for a case in front of you goes off the rails and people start insulting the subject of the case you look the other way? The hypocrisy reeks. I ask again, and if you answer nothing else then answer this; will you step down if I find six faults of yours and if not why is it ok for you to desysop EP but not accept you are in error and step down? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would add to the above that ArbCom has taken a narrow-sightedly binary view of this case. Without ever setting forth a menu of options, a vote has been called for the death penalty against adminship. Does ArbCom have the power to issue a warning? Can it leave an admin the bit while setting forth specific prohibitions on that admin's conduct that, if breached, would trigger additional consequences? It concerns me that if ArbCom sees desysopping as the only tool in its toolbox, then every problem will end up looking like a reason for desysopping. bd2412 T 19:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very simple. There are no options available if EP has decided not to engage. Respect EP's decision, to leave WP:EN and the tools rather than adjust his behavior.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

EP's decision to engage or not engage - which I do respect - is immaterial to the question of whether ArbCom is going forward with an unnecessary action. bd2412 T 19:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@BD, thats the problem I see as well. In the past Arbcom has only used 3 punishments; Sanctions, desysopping or blocking/banning or a combination. Usually its desysop with a ban but in the past they used sanctions with various degrees of success. The problem with the sanctions is that they were worded in such a way that the user almost always was trapped into a failing situation so of course they failed. I don't think EP has helped his case but on the same token as someone who has been under the pressures of editing in the past and acted rashly myself when no one would listen or cared, I think taking a Wikibreak until things settle is probably an acceptable solution to the problem. Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, a Wikibreak is a good idea at times. But, ArbCom's not even satisfied with that. They've decided to pursue evidence outside of this project and find out if he's been active on other projects. Finding evidence of that, they've decided to be upset that he hasn't responded here, and conclude must be stripped of his sysop bit. I wonder, have they bothered to contact him on the other projects where he's supposedly been active? They didn't bother to notify him there was a motion under way to desysop him, so I doubt it. So far as ArbCom has any real evidence of, the last thing EP was aware of vis-a-vis this case was this state of the request page. They have no way to prove he's been on to read proposals, requests by various people, etc. Yet, they're certain he must be desysopped because he won't respond. Why is this motion necessary if he isn't even editing? Why? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been weighing back and forth whether or not to put my two cents in for a few days. While it appears to be a moot point now barring some drastic change of events, I have to agree with what is being said above. This is coming from someone who knows very well[11] that sometimes when this place stresses you out to the breaking point, it's probably a better choice to just take a long wikibreak rather than commit suicide by Arbcom. Despite what is said above, I think the current incarnation of the committee has some very good people on it, and they will probably give you the option to appeal to them rather than go through a new RfA if you ever choose that you want the bit back that badly. Trusilver 03:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	muscle
	Thank you for sharing your knowledge in many languages on "... Paleobiology, Latin, Galician, ... and ... almost any other academic subject", - keep working on Muscle, we need it! - You are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

For using his administrator tools while involved (see evidence), the administrator permissions of User:EncycloPetey are revoked. To regain administrator permissions, EncycloPetey must make a successful Request for Adminship (RfA).

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Per the above I have, with regret, removed your sysop bit. There are a number of other flags such as rollback that you may feel qualified to use, let me know and I'll sort you out as soon as I can. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)