User talk:FT2

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive
  Closed topics are archived to approx. July 31 2008.

Current discussion summaries

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Worm That Turned 264 4 8 99 Open 09:47, 18 November 2024 1 day, 3 hours no report

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Request name Motions Initiated Votes Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/5/0 [edit] Open cases Currently, no arbitration cases are open. [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Yasuke 13 Nov 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open. Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Request name Motions Initiated Votes Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/5/0 [edit] Open cases Currently, no arbitration cases are open. [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Yasuke 13 Nov 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Wikipedia:Canvassing | Contribs tool: [3] | plainlinks: 'Span style="plainlinks"'

Hashes of evidence

Request for Assistance

Greetings! On your User Page you say, "If you need help, I'm one of the people to ask." I need some assistance. I have had some difficulty regarding a group of users that are engaging in extremely frustrating and very un-Wikilike behaviour: edit-warring, persistent incivility, disruptive Wikilawyering, pervasive refusal to WP:AGF, inappropriate use of automated tools to revert good faith edits without discussion, tag-teaming, etc. ... the list is long. I am hesitant at this point to name names as these users "seem" to be in the habit of monitoring my edits. (This is evidenced by their immediate reverts of my edits on articles which they in some cases had no prior history of editing.) I realize they will probably read this, but as I am not yet naming names, it will only be their guilty conscience (if they have one) that would indicate to them who I mean. At any rate, would you be able to offer some assistance? If so, how would you suggest we proceed? If not, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions. Thanks in advance! -- DannyMuse (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded on users talk page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

More secret tribunals? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, OM, just because FT2 has shown a clear predilection and strong penchant for secret tribunals there's no need to assume that he's doing so here: I'm sure he's merely trying to assuage Danny's fears. It's the AGF thing to do. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mostly back

I now have email and various tools back working. Still short of some things, but the basics are there and seem to be stable. I think I can begin to class myself as "mostly back" now. Email filtering is still broken and needing redoing, various configuring is still needed, and the last couple of hardware components are still not in stock, but that's about the only items left.

Thanks to all -- and apologies for the many things I wanted to deal with but couldn't during the last 4 weeks. I'll get going on the backlog as of this evening.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

FT2, you might look into cloud computing. Some time ago I vowed to keep nothing of value on my own computers, in case it crashes or gets stolen, and because I switch back and forth between two of them. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he can also try to do something about writing up some of the Workshop in the now (almost) three month old C68-FM-SV on the proposed decisions page? I know that you are already taxed from the OM affair, but the committee is not helping anything by allowing this to drag on. Frankly, removing Felonious Monk's and SlimVirgin's administrator privileges, reversing the abusively gamed Cla68 RFA, and giving both Guy and Viridae civility restrictions is probably the most sensible outcome. It would also send a strong message that abusing administrator status as a way to game the system is not going to be tolerated nor will screaming cyberstalking give you a free pass from being held accountable for your actions. --20:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Um. I have crossed swords with Felonious once or twice, he seemed a decent sort. Much of the animus seems to spring from the visceral hatred some pro-intelligent design editors seem to have for those who support the scientific rationalist view. I wish I knew what it is that people have against SlimVirgin, I've never really cared enough to find out what started that whole shitstorm. I would not object to a civility restriction, but I think you will be hard pressed to find any examples of "rhetorical exuberance" from me lately; the concept of incivility is atrociously difficult to pin down and separate from perfectly normal human exasperation (something on which Giano and I agree absolutely, if my exchanges with him are anything to go by). Wikipedia is not kindergarten, after all, and sometimes we must correctly identify the type of earth-turning implement. Still, if anyone could come up with a workable civility guideline that Giano could get behind and be inspired by, I would say that would be a huge boon for the project. We urgently need a framework which does not protect endlessly polite POV-pushers from the consequences of their vexatiousness, and which recognises the difference between ill-temper and ill-intent. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One framework I find useful is to distinguish between polite words and polite behavior. It is easy to indentify impolite words, but it takes much more time and insight to see impolite behaviors, such as "polite" POV pushing, endless needling and provocation, and trolling. We need to target the substance of incivility, not just the form. Jehochman ^Talk 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP articles for deletion

Dear FT2: per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion I am notifying you, as the original creator and good-faith guardian and defender of the NLP pages, that I am listing all of these for deletion (with the exception of the NLP page itself, for which I recommend a substantial rewrite in accordance with Wikipedia principles on OR, blatant promotion of a commercial product and so on).

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. Peter Damian (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Blpinfo

Template:Blpinfo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. naerii 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of NLP Modeling

An editor has nominated NLP Modeling, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLP Modeling and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

• You're the only person arguing for the article to be kept, but you've written roughly half of the text on the discussion page. Perhaps it's time to take a step back? I find that on wiki, the harder you argue for things, the more it puts people off agreeing with you. Best, naerii 14:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your most recent contributions have made Wikipedia Review

[4]

Best. Peter Damian (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also, could you confirm, as my request on the AfD page, that you have no COI here? I have no problem with the fact you have a certification in NLP (or appear to have), but it would be unethical, as a sitting member of Arbcom, to be involved in this AfD were you to have any commercial interest in promoting this product on-wiki. Peter Damian (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1. WR users are entitled to have a view, obviously. I tend not to go off-site much, though. If it is relevant to the wiki it will have been posted by some editor, on-wiki, or by email. I gather many people's edits get discussed there; I'd be amazed as an admin and arbitrator if from time to time mine weren't.

2. Confirmed I have no commercial interest in the topic, nor any COI. On the very few occasions I have edited a topic where I might have partiality, I place the connection details voluntarily on-wiki when commencing editing the topic to enable other editors to be aware. This is rare though as generally I avoid editing topics I have material involvement in, for transparency.

(One exception I can think of - I edit on contract bridge, which I play at tournaments, but have never edited it in a manner deemed controversial, and would pull back to the talk page in case of dispute for that reason. Update - I've done some 30,000 edits, and also many originated from requests for help or following edit wars/disputes on whatever articles it happened to be, so I obviously can't be 100% certain, but none come to mind.)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say stick to bridge, but having seen some of the arguments that can break out around rival bidding systems maybe that would be no better! Guy (Help!) 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee thanks, Guy! :) I'll write that one down :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rapport (NLP)

I have nominated Rapport (NLP), an article you created, for deletion. I'm sorry, this really is nothing personal (I think you know that). I try to go by content not by the contributors of an article, as I would not want to be prejudiced by any personal feelings about individual - I had no idea you'd started it until the Twinkle script left this message. I'm afraid that a comment made at the Modeling AfD caused me to look at this, and I really do think that this is giving undue weight to an interpretation of a common word which is not really markedly distinct from the meaning as discussed in rapport. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You wont catch me arguing hard. I commented early in the second AFD agreeing with Thatcher, that this was a subtopic easily covered by overlapping other topics [5]. It's a fairly good call. Not only there's nothing there that can't fit into either NLP, communication or rapport, but from what I remember there isn't likely to be much added, and looking back with a few more years perspective on AFD's and editing, I (more than likely) concur. It'll have coverage and reliable sources, the issue on this one (for me) is WP:MM: if multiple articles cover similar or closely related topics, we usually try to avoid pointless "sprawl" . Supported, good catch. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In simple terms, I don't have a problem with deletions, or keeps. I have a problem with questionable decisions though. It's good when someone who doesn't have a personal interest in the matter (or matters surrounding it) makes the decision. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding Guy, FT2 originated nearly all the articles on NLP, plus helped in booting off nearly everyone who objected to this crap being put onto the world's most famous online encylopedia. Get real. Peter Damian (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes and this rather gives the lie to FT2's claim that the NLP article got irretrievably messed up in June 2006 after the POV warriors (i.e. anti-NLP) editors spoilt it. The trail for June clearly shows FT2 and other NLP practitioners complete whitewash of the article. Look at how the article is before they get to work, then how it is afterwards. Laughable. Peter Damian (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What about leaving FT2 alone don't you understand? Avruch ^T 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the last unblock don't you understand? I have been continually harassed by this guy, or by people he has encouraged to harass me. Please stop this harasssment of ME. You don't seem to able to distinguish principled criticism of editors on Wikipedia from what you call 'harassment'. Go and work for the Chinese, your methods would suit them fine. Peter Damian (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I still don't see any reply to my perfectly legitimate criticism of FT2's claim that the article was 'messed up' beyond retrieval in 2006. The June 2006 record shows that FT2 and others completely reverted all the changes that had been made, including the removal of perfectly valid citations. Peter Damian (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A number of users including myself have told you what to look for, and where. You have decided each time, that you know better and they must all be biased. So there seems little point re-explaining again. Pretty much everyone uninvolved who has looked at HeadleyDown's editing concluded the same, and mostly it's been other people agreeing with the evidence.

You've been pointed to similar sources. You've moved to co-edit with the same banned user on multiple topics, and of course the last 48 hours of pointed posts. Doesn't it strike you that echoing the stances and edits of someone whose editing got them blocked and permabanned by multiple admins under multiple names for virulent dishonesty and heavy pov warring, is unlikely to be a Good Thing for any editor.

I'm not inclined to keep trying. Headley tried wrapping everyone up in distraction too, and we know that game, those who are used to him. You need to go away, go re-read, figure it out for yourself, and mostly, listen to all the others who have tried to tell you. Almost nobody who has dealt with him as an uninvolved party is likely to want to deal with him again - whether directly, or indirectly. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make these veiled threats of blocking or banning. Let me make a positive suggestion. You have offered mediation - your choice, if you like. I would like a full and open discussion about the circumstances surrounding Headley and Flavius' block in Q2 2006. Most people I have spoken to do not remember who these people are. Does that sound reasonable? Peter Damian (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter, FT2 was not even an administrator at that time, much less an arbitrator (He was made an admin in January 2007 [6]). The admins who made the blocks (for bad behavior, then for sockpuppetry) are documented at the bottom of this page, and seem to be mostly Katefan0 (who has retired) and Woohookitty (talk · contribs), who is currently active. While you are welcome to advocate on their behalf, Headley and Flavius must make their own appeals to Arbcom--I doubt very much that Arbcom would be interested in discussing it as a theoretical matter unless the users actually make a request to be unbanned. Assuming they do that, FT2 would recuse from hearing the case and would participate as an editor only. I believe the Arbcom is now taking active steps to exclude arbitrators from the private discussions of cases in which they are involved (through the use of separate mailing lists) which is an improvement from the past. Thatcher 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Thatcher, I agree there are a number of issues to sort out here.

(1) The blocking or banning of users like Flavius Vanillus, whose contributions I have documented here, and which do not in my view merit blocking or banning. I'm interested in cases like this because they raise in general the issue of how pseudoscience is dealt with in Wikipedia. Cases like these suggest that those with a scientific or academic background are distinctly on a wrong foot when it comes to Wikipedia. Why is this? What can we learn from the case of Flavius? How would we play it again? I want some way to help us going forward, to make it easier to deal with pseudoscience in the future. Wikipedia has a distinctly higher profile in 2008 the media and in the scientific profession than it did in 2006, and I am in contact with people in the medical profession who are very uneasy about the way topics like NLP and also [Eye_Movement_Desensitization_and_Reprocessing EMDR] are being handled. It looks as though valid scientific objections to these subjects are being handled arbitrarily by blocking or banning, and that could be very damaging to Wikipedia if it were made public.

(2) The blocking or banning of Headley Down. FT2 has been instrumental in banning sockpuppets of this user since he became an admin: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

This case is more problematic, because of the use of multiple sockpuppets (which I despise). On the other hand, Phdarts made some excellent contributions to the Pederasty article, and I value the extensive research he puts into his work. Wikipedia needs more editors like him. So from a practical point of view, perhaps we should put a little work in revisiting this case. FT2 would have to be involved here, because he seems to be the blocking admin in all recent cases. As you know, I was particularly annoyed when he blocked PhDarts.

In general, I have a profound concern, and always have had, that Wikipedia is not a good environment for academics, because of the various cultural idiosyncracies that prevail here (I originated the expert retention projects years ago). My view is we should be making it a better place, because we need academics and qualified experts and other professionals, and we should not be making life hard for them. In particular, not trying to ban them (as nearly happened to me yesterday) for raising perfectly valid, well-sourced and good faith concerns. Best Peter Damian (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

Flavius' case is not about "how pseudoscience is dealt with in Wikipedia". It's about how virulent sock-puppeteers, and pov warriors who create socks, or recruit meats, are dealt with, following a year long sock war and abuse. The answer is historic, and can be summed up roughly as "lack of patience by everybody", including all the Arbitrators and the admins who dealt with it at the time (I wasn't one of those). If there is a better proposal going forward, then name it and see if it can work. However, Headley, his sock-puppets, and others 'recruited' by him with the effect of pushing his line back onto the wiki, are very unlikely to be part of that, either in person, or indirectly. Nobody would mind if he was an honest editor with his work. But he was not, and that's well known to anyone who checks the evidence dispassionately. You need to do that more thoroughly, and not just assume "sounds scientific and plausible and has cites" means "is legitimate", when it comes to this editor. That's his game. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take a serious reality check here (see my other comment on your slanderous misattribution of sources). You seem to be confusing different editors (Flavius and Headley). Flavius is a bona fide academic who has never used (to my knowledge) multiple accounts. His banning was a disgrace to the project. I don't care if you weren't involved. This is an issue for all of us. You seem to have an unhealthy and pathological obsession with both of these editors due to your obsessive sense of ownership of the NLP articles. Repeat: these articles are not your property, they are the community's, and it is for the community to judge. I am still happy to be involved in mediation but you seriously need to change your way of going about things if this is going to be at all productive. Start with avoiding the term 'virulent sock-puppeteer' and its cognates. Look dispassionately at the edits, try not to selectively cite (or to falsify sources) and things will be just fine. End of lecture. Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You accuse him of slander, of intentionally falsifying sources, of attempting to own article content in a subject area. You implicitly accuse him of a conflict of interest, and seem to attribute to him some sort of malice for being involved in the blocking of sockpuppets of a banned user. If you want to begin a process or appeal for the review of blocks or bans, there are formal mechanisms for doing these things. FT2 has made it obvious that he will not do them for you, so what more do you want from him? What goal are you hoping to achieve by posting to this page? To make as many accusations as you can before getting blocked, and then scream conspiracy and the doom of Wikipedia? Avruch ^T 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, follow the thread more carefully. I was replying to a polite note FT2 left on my talk page. If you read that, also the note I left on Guy's page, you will see I clearly wasn't implying the false attribution was deliberate. And please keep out of this discussion unless you have something of substance to contribute. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In your comment directly above mine, you write to FT2: "...your slanderous misattribution of sources." If you were intending to imply that he had made an error, then perhaps you might consider using less inflammatory language. In my summary of your remarks above, I left out that you described him as pathologically obsessive. That is called irony. Regarding HeadleyDown and Flavius, my point remains - what do you expect him to do for you? There are places and processes designed to address your complaints - use them. Avruch ^T 19:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What I expect him to do is answer my question. Can you just go away please. Peter Damian (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've said what I had to say, and you're free to ignore me. From your remarks here, and your "toady" and "arselicker" edit summaries, its clear that you're unable to respond to criticism without personal attacks. Since I don't have the power to reform the behavior of an adult, and you obviously are intelligent enough to understand what I've written, there's nothing further to say. Avruch ^T 21:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. Sincerely. Peter Damian (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Strategy (NLP)

I have nominated Strategy (NLP), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategy (NLP). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? rootology (T) 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• You know, Rootology, there is no particular rush. A short breather between some of these noms would not be the end of the world... Thatcher 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm not meaning to poke. I just am planning to nominate this one lone one, since it's totally unsourced/conceptual/content from the practice. It just stuck out too much, from reading about 10-15 of them just now. I'm sorry, FT. :( rootology (T) 02:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:VP_Bug(1)-FT2.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:VP_Bug(1)-FT2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, from the title its a screenshot of a bug in VandalProof from long ago. It can go. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Query concerning arbitration case delay

Hi FT2,

I am writing in relation to the arbitration case, C68-FM-SV. I submitted evidence to that case concerning misuse of admin tools by user FeloniousMonk. My evidence was submitted on May 20, thus over three months ago. I am wondering why there has been no resolution of this case. I am not writing in order to accuse anybody, but I would like to say that this lengthy delay does indicate that there seems to be a problem with the functioning of the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration should be resolved more quickly than this, as you no doubt already know. No doubt as well these cases attract a lot of melodrama, but I would like to state that my evidence was submitted in good faith, and that such lengthy delays give the appearance that arbitrators are not respecting those who take the time to submit evidence in the hope of making possible a decision. In other words, there is the appearance that those who place their faith in the committee by submitting evidence are not having that good faith returned in the form of the obligation to make a timely decision. Why should editors continue to submit evidence in such cases if they cannot trust that their evidence will be considered and acted on within a reasonable timeframe? I would also like to add that, even though the case no doubt contains many complex elements, it does not seem to me that any of those complexities are so much greater than those found in other cases, as to be sufficient to explain the delay. Perhaps there are reasons for the delay of which I am unaware, whether to do with the nature of the case itself, or to do with the nature of the committee. I am therefore wondering: (a) if a decision is likely soon; (b) if the committee acknowledges the delay is itself a failing of the committee; (c) if the committee feels obliged to explain the true causes of the delay; and (d) if the committee will state whether it believes these problems need to be addressed, and if so, how. FNMF (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sceptre_2

I don't mean to pry, but there wasn't much on this RfC when you posted. Was it meant for another self initiated RfC, or was this one the correct one? Synergy 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Prying's fine, I got asked by someone if we were aware of the generic situations and such, so I commented.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. No problems then. It just caught me off guard to see you say the concerns at this specific RfC, before a concern was raised over there. I'll go back to minding my own business now. :) Synergy 11:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

New account on Wikipedia Review

Sorry to be checking, but worse things have happened. An account in the name of 'FT2' has been opened at Wikipedia Review. Could you possibly just confirm here that it is genuine? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, if that's not FT2, we're looking at an uncanny impersonation of his writing style.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree absolutely but I just like things to be verified. If it's genuine, he should have no problem confirming. Peter Damian (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. This was my email comment to arbcom:

I have signed up an account at WR. This is prompted by the general matters quoted below, and [specific matter snipped]. The central part of my post there, reads as follows: "Since a sitting arbitrator setting up a WR account will be a topic of speculation, it's probably worth saying why, and why not, up front. Main reasons why, are that a lot of the worst disputes and controversies I see, seem to have their roots off site as much as on-site. In other words the action may start on-wiki, but the speculation, concerns, and accurate or inaccurate views and myth-making may take place off-wiki. My job (and probably a number of disputes I get asked to help with) gets easier on-site, if I'm aware of the myths earlier and if people who have concerns can ask those who might know. Obviously people can and should ask on-wiki or by email if there is a worry, but the fact is that many people won't, or don't see fact checking as important. Also because I'm still finding myself regularly involved on wikipedia, in matters where WR users take an interest, and whatever some at wikipedia may think, a number of editors I'm told post at WR are sane, sensible users. (Obviously some are not balanced reasonable editors, but the point is, there are probably all sorts, and assumption isn't helpful.) So I would like to avoid the hearsay that "all WR users are whatever", in favor of a view that like wikipedia editors, they're individuals, and to meet those individuals. Lastly, because realistically, I do the public face of many of the more high profile Arbcom cases, and I'm one of the Arbitrators more willing to be fairly open to questions on such cases where possible. What I'm not here for: to spend days justifying things to people who can't think calmly, clearly and productively without games; to argue people out of entire world views such as conspiracy-based thinking; to identify myself personally or discuss irrelevant matters; to get distracted from my core work on English wikipedia Arbcom; to give information and views I wouldn't give on Wikipedia itself, to fight battles and causes. If someone wants serious sensible dialog, then sure. But Arbitrators don't get elected by the community for cluelessness; there will be some here who just want to distract, have fun, play games, or the like - not interested. The users here who want genuine dialog, and act that way... those will find I'm open as much as my Wikipedia work and the best interests of the project allow me to be, and as they approach me, that's how they will find me. That said most of my wiki-work is at Wikipedia itself. I don't do politics so even other wiki sites such as meta aren't places I go, unless relevant to enwiki work, much less off-site like this. I just think there's a chance that this might be something I should do, or at least check out, rather than rely on hearsay." I do not plan to be controversial there or to say or do anything I wouldn't on-wiki. I don't plan to get distracted from stuff here. Rather, I plan to try and keep better abreast of the dramas before they hit Wikipedia and RFAR/ANI, and perhaps to forestall some of the worst idiocies one hears of. I plan to use it to look when other concerned admins tell me of a WR thread that in the past I'd have ignored, which I possibly should read.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just curious... why did you have to justify it to the Arbcom? Did Brad have to? I mean, as a body they have no authority over this sort of thing as it relates to your position on the AC itself, correct? rootology (C)(T) 01:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to bringing the project into disrepute. There's a relatively strong faction of contributors that see WR as bad, and we've had serious issues of outing there in the past. Given FT2 is in a position of trust within the project, it was only right he told his colleagues what he was planning to do. FT2 has already expressed that he's not going to get involved in any contentious issues over there, and I suspect he'll take a lesser presence than NYB (although I respect Brad has kept his postings collegial throughout and has kept his opinions directed to defending Wikipedia). I guess conversing with his fellow arbs was down to an act of respect. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1/ I generally disclose any issue that might be relevant, if in doubt, and have done so from my earliest days here. It helps avoid problems later. Plus 2/ as Ryan P says. WR is seen in a dim light by many users. It is important to me, to be clear to users who might wonder, and anticipate the question. It cuts down uncertainty and is respectful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes total sense. I was just curious, is all, as things are always touchy between the USA and the Soviet Union these days. rootology (C)(T) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment on civility

Hi FT2, I am struck by your post at WP:ARB/GWH, "Comment on civility policy" #3, specifically "we are encyclopedists, not school-children having a squabble". However it is a patent fact that a portion of the editorship here in fact are school-children. Some are university students, some are high-school students (well, they're young enough that hopefully they are still in school). Combine this now with the additional patent fact that (I think I read this first in one of Guy's comments) "the internet is populated by eggshells armed with sledgehammers", and we have a big problem with defining civility.

Young people especially are concerned with pushing all limits and react disproportionately when those limits are brought home to them. I know I did (long ago). We cannot have a milieu such as this wiki where all comers are free to carry on as they will, pursuing any strategem they wish to effect their will, then when someone reacts abruptly after persistent engagement rush off to demand redress for some particular identified "offensive" wording. If someone were to call me an idiot or troll, here or in actual life, I would have one of three responses: if I respected the person, carefully consider whether I was really being an idiot or a troll; if I already knew and did not respect the person, feel silently flattered that they would take time from their life to insult me, and carry on; or if it was a stranger, react cautiously with the aim of getting on with my life and reviewing the situation later.

We can't have a situation where everyone must tiptoe about avoiding certain phrasings whilst free to act in a civilly provocative manner or engage in "civil POV-pushing". Sometimes bullshit needs to be called, well, "bullshit". Civility enforcement should be applied to those editors who react inappropriately with incivil language at the outset of a debate, and those who resort to flaming language - not necessarily to those who get frustrated when their points aren't recognized mid-debate and resort to plain language. Admins shouldn't necessarily be asking other admins to review whether they've been treated incivilly either, there's a big danger of self-reinforcement in that procedure. And adults shouldn't be forced to observe the self-absorbed standards of school-children. Franamax (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I used the expression more as a colloquialism. Some schoolchildren are quite mature and can discuss neutrally and capably, with insight. Some adults in their 20's, 30's and 40's and older come to this site and "act like children". The image I tried to portray was that we should act as sensible "adult" people whose focus is on writing an encyclopedia, rather than the kind of scenes one might (metaphorically) see in a school-yard. It was not a comment about any age related issue.

You're right about certain problems, but those problems can (and routinely do) manifest in the conduct and edits of people of any age, and frequently in the edits of adults every bit as much as any younger person. It's the behavior that needs targeting. Saying "a spade is a spade" is not actually a good guideline for this site. "What best helps the project and reduces issues" is a far better one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade will often help the project and reduce issues, in my experience. Peter Damian (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And often causes and escalates disputes, leading to wasted effort, in mine. (Also, people who want freedom to call others anything they wish, often cannot handle being told by others how they themselves are seen.) All disputes that aren't about content issues, are ultimately wasteful. So choosing approaches that reduce them is good. It helps people work with others even if they don't like them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All disputes that end up with good content contributors (Giano, Probiv, ScienceApologist, Flavius, Headley, PhDarts, Ciz and the many others) leaving the project are wasteful. Your approach to policing, either directly or indirectly, has led to all this, and is dividing and wounding the community. Fact facts, confront your denial, get real. Peter Damian (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And can I suggest as politely as I can that it is you who has the difficulty of being told by others how you are seen? Peter Damian (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The good content contributors who act impolitely are a net loss to the acquisition of good content--for every one of them, they scare off many who would contribute good content, or who try to, don't quite know the rules, and are attacked instead of helped for it. The sooner we are rid of using that excuse the better. There are a great many people in the world who can contribute content. There are great many people who can contribute in a constructive way. We need those who can do both--I think on the whole, of those who could contribute in an important way here, most of them are encouraged by a civilized environment. We lose by restricting ourselves to the minority who are willing to tolerate the present style. Arrogant specialists are not suited for community projects. DGG (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you did not mix WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL? I never heard of any established contributor who was driven away by a good faith but frank and blunt phrase from another contributor. On the other hand I know quite a few of great content contributors who were driven away (or evoluted into grudge contributors) by civility blocks (that are sort of ultimate incivility if you think about it). The notion of zillions of potential active contributors eager to contribute for the sake of Wikipedia goals but scared by the civility level here is not something that rings true for me (at least in my wikicorner). There are plenty of promoters of marginal theories, funcraft, nationalism and other spam of sorts. Sometimes they are useful but overall are mixed bags. There are power thirsty people anxious for the admin bits. Not many people want to contribute thousands of unpaid work just to get scolded or blocked for somehow blunt message Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between "frank but blunt" and insulting, and a difference between a single phrase and repeated abuse. The eample of how to deal with COI politely is our Business FAQ (which also applies more generally). DGG (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly who these people are that have been driven away by incivility. As it is, I don't believe this "problem" is a fraction as bad as the other problems mentioned, and it seems to me ethos-worship the natural functions of which, though perhaps well-adapted to an online gaming forum or something, are maladapted to creating a good encyclopedia. If the wikipedian ethos was such that creating good encyclopedic content was at its heart, supported by upward conformity and peer respect, then the natural function of incivility would be translated and utilised as an informal mechanism for rooting out bad contributors. A fantasy of course, but by promoting civility over so much else, and at such expense, we are writing an algorithm that ensures wiki demographics favour (on and off) those with wiki-experience at the expense of those without, the unimpassionable uninvolved at the expense of the emotionally commited involved, the socially connected wiki-parasites over the committed lone content contributor, the cynical at the expense of the honest, the high-turn over troll account over the long term editor, and the famous civil POV-pusher at the expense of the weary neutralist. We should be using policy to design algorithms primarily and above all else to faciliate and increase the quality of content. Wikipedia has enough base content now, or roughly enough; what it needs more than an increase in quantity of editors is an increase in quality. If for each quality editor there are always going to be 4-8 poor editors, then obviously you are capping wiki's potential quality by ensuring wasteful occupation of his/her time and reducing productivity. Does promoting clumsy civility policies help or hinder this? Well, we already have a number of policies that make numbers count over argument, so it's total madness to reinforce other policies that target the natural coping mechanisms that often allow good editors to withstand this over long periods while inflaming their grievances all the more. I feel sometimes that many people on wikipedia promote mindless etiquette and egalitarian dogma so much that mindless etiquette and egalitarian dogma themselves have almost become the de facto goals of the encyclopedia, whereas these were originally intended merely as a means to an end. That's just what happens I guess. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was good at parsing arguments, but I am not the least sure I comprehend the meaning of the above paragraph. I think you are saying basically that the e incivility present at Wikipedia scares away bad editors preferentially to good. I think its the other way round. The uneducable incompetents and the trolls can best be disposed of quickly and politely. The educable incompetents who are perhaps the majority of new contributors can be educated, but can only be educated by a relatively gentle approach--at least thats what most people's experience of all sorts of educational systems seems to say, and I don't see why its different here. The competent academic types who want to work in their special field need fairly gentle handing too, because they need to be taught the difference between the OR that is encouraged in academic writing but inappropriate here. There are indeed a few of us with the confidence and knowledgeof the net to b able to ignore the unpleasantness. There are a lot more who aren't so willing. I know from having tried to recruit them. I have yet to see a situation that is not improved by politeness. DGG (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG, to get all Rumsfeldian here, you've identified a matrix of (un)educable/(in)competents. You're correct that the uneducable segment should be disposed of politely, but until they are, they wreak havoc on others who are trying to work with them in good faith. An editor who continues to ignore the fact their arguments have been refuted by side-stepping and misdirecting the discussion is not considered uncivil (when in fact failing to respond directly is equally antithetical to our goals); yet when another editor snaps and says "don't be so stupid, you're talking in circles" - that is identifiable and is pursued as incivility.

Now let's look at the educable side: how many of those people are actually driven away by incivility? It would seem that if they are educable, they will quickly adapt and realize their original approach is in error before they are met with incivility. I would agree that incivility to newcomers is always bad (but already covered under WP:BITE) - but recent cases seem to revolve around perceived incivility between those already familiar with the wiki-milieu. Considering this GWH case, assume for a moment that PD was your "educable/competent" academic in need of gentle handling - then Stifle's actions were the incivil ones in need of sanctioning.

Much of the civility debate is being driven by bad cases. When Giano says "You are a fool and an idiot" or Guy says "Fuck me, do we have to deal with this shit again", they are not (necessarily) setting out to be uncivil, they are expressing themselves plainly and in almost every case either dealing with either the wiki-educated or the ineducable. Very rarely does an "educable" novice get targetted (in Giano's case I would say very close to never - he reserves his vitriol for those he feels should know better by now). More marginal cases would perhaps be ScienceApologist and ChrisjNelson. Even then though, I would like to see the evidence that it is incivility driving the potentially good contributors away before they have had a chance to get established. I could find a few counter-examples of potential contributors being driven away by dogged deletionists, baiters and policy-quoters - actually more than a few examples of new editors who've left with nary a bad word spoken to them, just fed up with the attitude of obstruction and lack of patient education. Franamax (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

your examples prove my point. Most people would tend to think that first comment an insult. I wouldnt mind if he said it to me, as I recognize it as habitual internet badmouth, but then I've been on the net since usenet days... :) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And taken context-free, it certainly looks like an insult. Now consider the case where I had indeed been acting like a fool and an idiot, it would be a correct statement and might prompt me to consider whether I should indeed reduce my foolishness and idiocy. That's the problem with "civility" - it's too easy to reduce to "you used a bad word!" and fails to consider the underlying situation. My personal stance is to always be civil, especially because I score as a victory the times the other party resorts to the opposite - but that makes me no less of a bastard in the arena of debate. (And I used to be incivil by Telex, whippersnapper!) :) Franamax (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article by RachelBrown

Can you take a look at this? I've commented out the image for the time being, as the uploader is now (widely!) known to falsely ID images. Avruch ^T 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

deletions

I admire your work in the recent controversy, I share your view of the people involved, but I regard your speedy deletions of the articles on the person as an example of COI. Whatever the merits of the deletion, whoever should have done it , it should not have been you. I urge you to seriously think whether you are over-involved. I humbly apologize--I had not read the deletion log carefully enough. Though you had made the most recent deletion, it was in straightening out the naming mess. The nom as A7 was by someone else. Your deletion reason was different. I don't see how you can say that an article placed by the subject was "primarily used for outing" him, though I suppose one could say, now serves the purpose of outing & delete by IAR. Personally, I think the outing was accentuated by the deletion and subsequent discussion, as seems to usually happen at attemtps to suppress things. Feel free to delete this comment altogether, if you think it wiser. DGG (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's okay to leave, it's fine.

Note -- This is about a page with the following log entries:

• Admin X deleted Page Y with reason "A7: Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person"

and then:

• FT2 restored Page Y with reason "undelete to correct and redelete, bio contains a major error, should be fixed in case ever referenced in future"
• Re-deletion of page.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

G'day FT

we keep missing each other in real-time places - so I'm declaring 'you're it' in the game of catch-up tag! - I'm really only a member of the peanut gallery for almost all of the recent wiki drama, but feel that there are seeds of important matters around the place. I wondered if you might be up for chatting a little bit? - I felt that the PD talk page should be unprotected, as you've probably seen, but it's not really a big deal in some ways, I guess... are you cool with me asking a few questions and us having a chat? hope so! best, Privatemusings (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the chat earlier, FT - we covered a lot of ground (I think!) - I'm still 'doing my homework' on some of the issues, and might come by again at some point :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting on Proposed decision - Alastair Haines

This (reasonably straight-forward) case has been open for too long, and has had no responses for nearly a week now when all it needs is a couple more votes before it's ready to close. Votes are required from at least 1 more arbitrator - either yourself, FayssalF, Matthew Brown (Morven), Thebainer or Yellow Monkey. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 @ wikiquote

A couple months ago, an account with the name "Crum375" was created on wikiquote (not the same person as Crum375 here). The user's ability to continue using this name was largely defended by Yehudi and Poetlister, and it seemed at the time to be a calculated move to annoy the real Crum375 - Has this account been investigated as to whether it may have been created by the same person as Poetlister/Yehudi/Cato/Taxwoman/etc ? --Random832 (contribs) 20:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good question and seconded. And the decision to allow the account to continue and not ask it to ask for a rename should be revisited. However as we have seen, Wikiquote is run in an insular manner by a small number of people, half of whom are the same person. Thatcher 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently PoetGuy admitted in a hidden forum on WR to have created the account. Thatcher 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Computer whizz-kid

Could you take a look real fast, should not take long. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 19:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a sock of these: [12][13][14] and as the user claims to be the "thousands of socks" vandal, probably these: [15][16]. Recent accounts of this vandal have had e-mail blocked, probably due to e-mail abuse. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Asking You FT2

Average Wikipedia editors are accused for sock puppet when the reality indicates these people never really had vandalism intents. Wikipedia says it's rather difficult to tell normal private accounts against the sockpuppets or between normal editors and sockpuppets.

Building yourself over Wikipedia is difficult and has many complicating issues. Have you ever heard about Do not bite the New Comers, the Wikipedia Policy?

Hrcnjennie2010 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Given this is a new account a week ago, clearly an existing user, and it is completely unclear what case you are discussing, it is hard to know what comment can help. I need some more information to check any case you feel was mishandled by anyone. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi FT2! Say hello to Marthaerin1888 (talk · contribs) ;) - Alison ^❤ 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also Carolyn1888, Marthajoan1812, Margarethelen1864, Margaretellen1812, Bethanymaxine1812 and various others. Inappropriate use of multiple accounts. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Incoming

I sent you an email. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My response to your response to a proposal

Hi FT2, I would like to draw your attention, if I may, to my response to your response to a proposal concerning a mechanism for removal of administrator privileges. If you're at all interested, you can find it here. Thanks. BCST2001 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your doing, :-) 百家姓之四 討論 (Discussion) 05:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Assistance

The IP from Bujinkan [17] that caused the page to be semi'd has moved on to Ninja, and is now edit warring to introduce material there saying ninjas come from Sun Tzu's Art of War. It seems dubious to me, but I don't want to edit war there. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. The page had been semi-protected also, until 3 days ago. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Removed. Sigh. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a barnstar, but a simple thank you for your efforts. Everyme 15:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

David L Cook article

I want to thank you for blocking IP address 74.171.57.199. I have had problems in the past with this individual. IS there anyway for us to trace this IP address to find out where it is registered to? I would like to knwo if it is registered to a company or if it is a public access computer. Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated!Canyouhearmenow 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You can find the internet provider whose IP it is, via Arin.net's WHOIS function. (Arin is the "American Registry for Internet Numbers"). It will tell you the public information that exists on an IP, which is usually the business or corporation operating it and who to contact there in case of complaint. If the number is not a North American one, then it'll tell you which registry does operate it and a list of links to the other global registries (AfriNIC, APNIC, LACNIC, RIPE, and InterNIC) atthe end of the page.

However the actual subscribers' information is usually not public. That's basically available via legal process only. All that is public on this number is that it's someone using BellSouth. Which is any of millions of people.

Be aware this could recur, if the IP is "dynamic" or the user has access to other internet connections. If needed let us know of any recurrence the same way you did this one.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate clarification if possible.

Hi FT2, we've never spoken that I am aware of so I hope its ok for me to come here to ask you this as I don't think this question should be put at the administrator board but clearly I have not posted there that frequently to know the exact policies. [18] Anyways, would you clarify this for me? The conversation and request at the thread Chiropractor started by Elonka, is it just at the stage of whether this article falls into the scope for special sanctions? Will there be discussions after this about who is to manage the new rules? I also see both, for and against, with good reasons on both sides as to why Elonka should step aside since there are two other administrators who have said they will work with the article. So my question for you is does the arbitration committee assign administrators to special sanctioned articles or is there some other way this is done? Right now according to the side box at the top of the thread, Elonka is the main administrator for the articles sanction. I don't have any problem with this per se other than I really think that she will not be well received by a lot of the editors there if she feels that warning/blocks/bans are needed. [19], [20] this is just a sample of why I believe that she wouldn't be well received because a lot of the editors are aware of these conflicts. I saw the sanctions to the article Quackwatch and the editing there went down dramatically and editors left because of it. The ones that stayed, because of the 0RR rule was then free to add information to the article that had been opposed for a very long time that now cannot be removed do to the editing restrictions. I personally feel with these types of sanctions, esp. the 0RR, put editors in good standing towards having their hands tied when trying to maintain WP:NPOV. Thank your very much for your time and I look forward to understanding the policies on how this works. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My main focus in replying was to give a view on the question Elonka asked - whether the topic falls within the scope of that case. So yes, to your first question. The "pseudoscience" ruling says simply, that some articles can have extra sanctions applied by administrators. Usual sense applies though -- questions of fair/unfair, involved/uninvolved, those get ironed out by administrators in the usual way (obviously as an administrator I might comment, like any admin, but the point is, that's not an arbitration committee matter at all). I'm away today so quick answer only. I'll re-read this tomorrow and add more if there's still a concern. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me, I appreciate it. There's no need to take anymore time away from you, I'm sure you have more important things to do then this. Your answer was suffient to answer my questions that I was not aware of and I now understand the way things are going. Again thanks for the time, you have a wonderful weekend, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

CU Help, please...

User talk:The Reverend Richard Hart is requesting an IP block exemption after being directed to create an account at User talk:91.108.206.230 when he found he was affected by one of your CU rangeblocks. As I'm not sure what it was for, I figured I should drop you a line to figure out what's going on. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just poking my nose in where it is probably not needed or relevant but see this re a real Reverend Richard Hart.[21] --Slp1 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight committee matter

Hi. The article List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States was blanked on September 21st, here, as a copyright violation under that recent Nielson DMCA matter. I wrote to the Oversight Committee about the matter on September 26th, but can't tell (obviously) if the letter has been processed. Obviously, if it's not affected, we want to restore the article. If it is, I'm presuming that it will need to be oversighted, though I might be mistaken about that. I'm hoping you can let me know how to proceed with this one. Meanwhile, pending some further feedback, I'm moving it from the current list to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Older consolidated. Thanks for any input you can offer. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, simple deleting of revisions would work here. Oversight is probably unnecessary. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Do you know the terms of the Nielson takedown? (Well, of course, you do. :)) Would that article be affected? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NOR

Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:DeletionPending

Hi FT2. I revised the Template:DeletionPending page. What is the status of this template? Was this template ever adopted? After no objections for such a long period, it seems reasonable to add it to Category:XFD templates. If the proposal is no longer pending, please review the usage text of the templates. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

???

What exactly are you talking about? In what way was I abusive? I have never voted for a featured picture without signing in through this screenname. -- mcshadypl ^TC 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm not sure what this means: "Category is a useful aid, not a prescriptive concern. ". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

When an article is described as being "in a category", it means that as an encyclopedia, listing it in that category is useful to readers. In RFAR cases when arbitrators want to say "this remedy can apply to any topic in a given field" the category can be a useful aid - a shortcut that editors can use to quickly check whether it's likely to be in that topic area. We're trying to identify some kinds of disputes with common themes, that it might be helpful to provide with a given remedy in common. But it cannot be an absolute guide ("prescriptive") by a long way, for a few reasons:

1. Categories vary (and can be varied at will by any editor)
2. Categories are designated to help readers, not to delineate topic areas for editors
3. Categories are limited to a sensible number per article. An article might reasonably belong in a category but still not be listed there, because as an encyclopedia, we only want a limited number of the most useful categories to show up.
4. The remedies are intended to deal with certain kinds of disputes prevalent in certain kinds of topics. Even if we could say completely which articles "belonged" in a category (if that meant anything), it might still not match which articles have Wikipedia disputes that are similar in nature to those found in that topic and probably could be considered within the remedy, for editorial dispute resolution purposes (even if technically they are not listed in that category).

Hope that makes it a bit clearer? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much better. I had a feeling that that was what you meant, but I wanted to make sure. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 12:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No one likes a tweaker

See Tweaking (behavior).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I know; it's enough to almost become an in-joke. A habit I haven't shaken. Mostly because however much one uses preview, the exact wording is still very tricky to get right, given that these comments are often on heavily divisive matters. This probably says it all... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Where I live (California), tweakers are people who've too much of an interest in ingesting this and doing stuff like painting their houses at 3am, etc - Alison ^❤ 04:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU ↔ SSP merger

• Regarding the SSP2 merger: there is discussion at WT:RFCU#Clerk request which you may be interested in. (See the comments at the bottom of that thread.) Would you be available to pop by there and give your two pence? Anthøny ✉ 18:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying there.
  My question now is, should we just go ahead and do it? Will you be taking part in the implementation, or should somebody else "take charge?"
  Anthøny ✉ 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be on it. Now I'm done with hardware issues and Poetlister, and we have the new cu's, I should move onto that fairly quickly. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:2008 main page redesign proposal

I'm sorry to bother you since you always seem to be busy, but I believe the WP:2008 main page redesign proposal needs you're help. We have plenty of good ideas, for example see Trevor MacInnis, Dudemanfellabra, and Onecanadasquarebishopsgate. However, the main reason why I am asking is that we can't seem to merge or omit proposals before we bring the discussion to the main page and potentially to a site wide discussion. Please give us some support or leadership, we need it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, don't put FT2 in charge of it, we'll just end up with a big wall of text on the main page! Kidding! Mr.Z-man 04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

More seriously, browsershots.org is a good resource for testing how a design would render. (Added that to the page as it's a good resource for web page design.) But I'm not a graphic specialist, so I can't comment on the design aspects.

As regards consensus, one approach if it really is deadlocked might be to try and create a table on a sub-page, with "important points" down the side and "suggested designs" across the top, and rate each design (0=very bad to 5=very good, or a consensus text description) against each criterion or issue. I'm not sure how you'd figure out the numbers, but hopefully users will generally agree a design is good or bad on a specific point. The pros and cons give a good idea what the major repeating issues and key comments are.

Perhaps something like that might help narrow down some designs that are overall weaker or stronger than others, and focus attention down to a final few.

A second approach (which such a table might also help with) might be to identify pairs or triples of designs which are similar in some way (layout, concept or such). In other words, compare 2 designs which have a lot in common, and use "head-to-head" quick polls to eliminate one or the other of these similar designs (or fix one using the other as inspiration to get the best of both). That way you end up with a smaller number of the best of their kind, to compare at the end. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I would have preferred for you to join in some of the conversation and give it there. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd only be able to comment as any editor. Perhaps you feel I may have some special knowledge or ability, but not on design and image stuff... the quality of feedback on individual images there is far better than I'd have spotted. The problem is one of consensus finding, and if you want me to repost the above there, I'd be fine doing so. I'm not sure what else I can help with, unfortunately, though I'd like to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I think this is fine. Thanks for your help anyway. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom chart

Wouldn't Paul August and UC's ability to grab a new seat end in 2009, when their original seats would've expired? Ral315 (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

They were elected in December 2006, so like the others in that tranche their terms end 31 December 2009, which is what's shown (I think). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well?

Can you please elaborate on your message within my talk page? What post are you referring to exactly? Since you are threatening to remove my account, I believe I am due at least an explanation of your accusations. Thanks. -- mcshadypl ^TC 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to do this by email, because there are privacy related aspects. Note carefully the wording -- "...[if] it's a room-mate or something like that, feel free to ask or email...".

Unfortunately you don't have wiki-email set on your account. (Otherwise I would have emailed you instead, and included the matter that concerns me.) I also haven't seen an email in my inbox between August 3, and now (I've just rechecked). If you sent one please re-send and let me know. As it is I don't want to post IP information on the wiki.

If you can email me, I'll try to sort this out with you immediately. My public email address is on my user page (ft2wikipedia.inboxgmail.com)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Hi, I don't know if you watch pages, but I replied to you on here. Would you be able to take a look? Thanks, and best wishes. -- how do you turn this on 21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good for checking as I would like to but don't often. Replied anyway, MBisanz pointed me to it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No fun

I must protest, most strenuously, this edit. Jehochman ^Talk 11:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Does it matter? I don't know that user from Adam (or Eve), but this is an informal page giving a list of possible runners and non-runners. Next to just one of them is a note that the user's ex-partners "are livid at the possibility, I am told". Hearsay of the highest order, and possibly completely irrelevant into the deal. Since we aren't going to inquire of all of them, if they may have some past partner who might have views on their current wiki activities, or list other matters related to a possible nomination, it seems grossly unfair to highlight just one in that list; in effect it poisons the well by highlighting one item of hearsay even before nominations open. How do you know that the matter is fairly represented by such a note, or indeed fair at all? You don't, nor do any of us.

If there is a legitimate concern that any candidate may not have the support of those close to them (and this is just about the user's exes, not their present partners), that is a legitimate question - but even then its place is during the question and answer period and after the user formally stands, and is best posed as a question whether they are affected by such an issue. But not just as a solitary note, unsourced, unconfirmed if accurate or fair, listed next to just one person, in a list of possible candidate names, a considerable time beforehand.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is an alternate account for Giano, if I remember correctly. Avruch ^T 15:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing as it is Avruch to hear a lightening brain computing away - beware, things are not always quite as they may seem or be intended to seem. Giano (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I now also see you were the user who added this comment originally.[22] FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

FT2, that content was approved by her Ladyship, and carefully verified. Regards, Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, its a page for tracking the candidates and helping people figure out who is running, etc, an information clearing house of sorts. While I do have plans for a voter guide User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide that will go in to details on the candidates, I'd prefer to keep things as even-handed and non-partisan as possible for the straight up candidate list. In any event, {{subst:User:MBisanz/ACE2008}} allows limitless reproduction and modification. MBisanz ^talk 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

open season on editors in pseudoscience

FT2, I just want to give a little explanation in response to this, that you wrote on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard:

There's complete validity in having a view that blocking policy and norms should change. The issue here is a specific block and current norms. What i have done is checked carefully if Elonka's action on your block accorded with current norms. It does, and she acted to a high standard (though you may not appreciate the result). If you feel the norm itself needs to change, then the best place to discuss is at the blocking policy talk page. That's a separate question.

There seems to have been some sort of arbitration committee review of my 24 hr block, but I don't know why because I did not request it, or know that it had been requested, and did not want it.

The only point I wanted to make when I brought the information about my 24hr block to Fringe theories/Noticeboard was that I think that many administrators are too trigger happy in using their block authority, and that administrative intervention is often more disruptive than a certain amount of acrimony in the discourse (aka WP:CIV, in wiki-speak), or an apparent violation of 3RR. I think this will now prove disruptive particularly in articles dealing with fringe theory, and I would urge some rethinking of the approach that has been initiated.

You may, or may not, have noticed that the editor Elonka protected from my so called edit warring is now in wiki-exile [23]. Truthfully, I have some doubts about the effectiveness of even doing that, because his editing was far from being all bad, and he will almost certainly be back in any case (although some of what he said while being shown to the door was deplorable).

In any case, I want to thank you, and anyone else who was involved in the review, for taking the time and going to the trouble. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that my initial reaction to the review of the block was so negative, but it was a surprise to see on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard a review of a block which I had not requested; and which seemed more for my own talk page, if I had requested it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why was my 24hr block for 3RR, which seems like a fairly common WP event, reviewed by the arbitration committee, which certainly is not at all common? Obviously you spent some time reviewing the diffs, and spent more time explaining your views on the block. And, on the top of your review and opinion, you wrote: "(Requested to review and give an opinion "from scratch" on the block and policy):"[24], but you did not say who asked you to review the block, nor the reason for an arbitration committee review of such a minor 24hr block. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to ask for an explanation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It was reviewed by myself, a Wikipedia administrator. An experienced admin to be sure, but the arbitrators are almost always administrators, and they don't stop being administrators doing usual admin things, when they sit on Arbcom. There was a dispute related to a block, in an area I'd recently commented on (pseudoscience/parapsychology RFAR), I heard of it the usual way (basically admins keep their ears open and aware of much that goes on, and are expected to be clued in and seasoned) and because there had been questions previously by some users if Elonka's blocks were valid, I decided to give this one a full checkout. And it was. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the explanation (even if it does not quite explain your writing Requested to review and give an opinion "from scratch" on the block and policy).

Truthfully, a good part of my protest was over a misreading of the diffs she gave...I never claimed any level of competence in understanding WP's systems of discussion and communication. I did not, in any case, question the "validity" her block because it is my understanding that administrators can block users for less than 3 reverts if they judge the circumstances warrant it. But I was surprised to be blocked without a warning to desist (which is normal when 3RR is the issue), and without any user complaint. How do you know that a warning would have not been sufficient to solve the problem? Or is it now accepted WP thinking that users need the access to edit so badly that a block will constitute a punishment? My own reaction has been only a sense of having been dealt with in an irrational way while trying to make an article more in line with WP standards.

On particular puzzling question that remains is why Elonka blocked me herself, instead of giving me a warning and then going though the 3RR administrators noticeboard -- which would seem to be standard procedure even for administrators (an apparently typical example being this [25]). You will, I hope, forgive me for going over this small incident at such length -- the reason being that what happened left me, intuitively, with a feeling of something being strange about the whole thing.

I will stand behind my previously stated view that blocking users is frequently more disruptive than the problem that the block is intended to cure. And I would challenge you, or anyone, to show that the changes I made to the article that day,the only day I edited it, did anything other than make the article more accurate and more NPOV.

Once again, thanks your explanation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci

i already replied to you beneath your original post on his page. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied to it before I saw this :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Your advice is constructive and I appreciate it and will do so in the future. For what it is worth, before i unblocked MathSci I checked the AN/I and the talk pages for the article involved, and double-checked MatchSci's and Mervyn's user contributions to make sure I had not missed any of their statements. I still stand by my conclusions but will in the future contact the blocking editor. I m not sure I would have expressed myself the way MatchSci did, but I do think his intentions were good. I see Elonka has been doing some mentoring of Mervyn concerning the Law article and I think on that article at least she is doing an admirable job. I think we need some more open discussion involving other editors concerning the copyright issues but I really hope Mervyn doesn't take any of it personally. And of course i hope everyone else is motivated by the desire to find a policy-compliant way to help a knowledgable editor add relevant content to an article, and shows it! Slrubenstein | Talk 01:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And you checked, but you still may have missed something. For example, suppose the main "outing diff" had been oversighted, which is one of the main reasons (along with defamation and office copyright handling) that WMF created the oversight tool? You wouldn't have been able to see it. Or this was done via email, or on a blog, or such. (To clarify, none of these apply here, but they could have.) So it's worth checking with the blocking admin even if you think you know, because you may not. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to a similar comment you made on MathSci's talk page. Anyway, the parties involved are perhaps cooling down and maybe tomorrow both will move forward without any rancour. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FT2, you contacted my talk page to suggest I reveal my email address to a person who has made persistent attempts to "out" me both before and after I filed an Incident report about it. And several attempts to bait me into revealing personal information.

You want to think about that for a minute?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As something generally useful, you may want to set up a webmail account, such as Gmail, so you can email users without revealing any personal details. A lot of people here do that. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

To add to Jehochman's comment (he's right), there's a number of ways you can engage in email dialog and not reveal any personal information or any address. I would agree not to reveal them, but for example, you could accept an incoming email (reveals nothing), use webmail and forwarding, or ask someone you trust to act as a relay for you. Gmail especially when used as a webmail, does not forward any personal information except the name you give yourself on it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Duh! Are you really both administrators? What is it about HARRASSMENT that you two do not understand? Is there a Wiki term for "stalker?" Why should I go out of my way to have a "private" conversation with someone who may later twist it and make it public for some unknown purpose. Mathsci was blocked for a week, and that lasted about a day. That fact in itself does not inspire confidence in Wiki prescriptions for dealing with these incidents.

There is a track record here, none of it particularly favorable to Mathsci from my point of view. Have you forgotten that already?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want your concerns to receive due consideration, it is best to be polite to those who are trying to help you. Calling somebody a "stalker" is a very serious allegation, not to be made lightly. Just because you call somebody a stalker, does not mean that it is so, nor does it excuse you from the ordinary standards of conduct. I do not see stalking behavior by Mathsci in the evidence that has been presented thus far. I do see you having some difficulties with content and copyright, which various editors have offered to help you with. I do see Mathsci making problematic references to your real life identity, which may constitute outing, but for the moment I am assuming these are inadvertent mistakes, rather than an intentional campaign to drive you off Wikipedia. I have asked Charles Matthews to explain how these recent diffs fit with prior incidents about which I may be unaware. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman, please come down off your high horse for a moment. It is a FACT that I have seen not the slightest hint of apology from Mathsci for his/her allegations against me in a previous Incident report and on my talk page, which were--as you admit--serious and did constitute outing, for which he/she was blocked for a week. I guess that means somebody besides me thought it was outing.

And then the block was lifted a day later by Slrubenstein who made zero attempt to investigate (e.g., might have contacted me or looked at the full record but did not). And then that person was repremanded by someone else for unblocking without looking at the full record.

If you don't see repeated instances of attempted outing, you're not looking at the full record. Ask Elonka. I understand ONE instance is enough for an immediate block, and more than one instance of harrassment is enough to get a restraining order against someone in any court in the US. Does it take more than that to constitute stalking in Wikipedia?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: My account has been enabled to receive email from others users since it was created.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(Dismounts) I know something about WP:OUTING because I recently had a lengthy conversation with User:FayssalF, one of our arbitrators, about it. Afterwards I made changes to WP:COI to help clarify to editors how they need to approach things. Our community has a lot of confusion over how to handle these matters. I am sorry about the way you were treated. You seem like a nice enough person, who just needed a few helpful pointers on how work with Wikipedia.

As for apologies, do not demand them. Forced apologies are bad. Please don't reference US criminal law when talking about harassment and Wikipedia. You are mixing two things that are separate. It is customary at Wikipedia not to ever threaten or insinuate legal action against another editor because of something they have done here.

I did not demand an apology. I merely pointed out I had not received any. I have not seen any indication of contrition or deviation from the initial (and subsequent) postion taken by Mathsci.

I did not (and would not) threaten any legal action. I merely made a statement about an external standard that should be comparable.

I never said there was a "requirement" to block anyone guilty of outing. But I did suggest it might be justified, as did another administrator in another thread concerning this very same case. Might have been Charles Matthews, but I don't recall. If it wasn't him, his name was in the same sentence. Haven't heard from him.

Please read what I actually write, and try not to read anything extra into my actual words. It's not sanitary or friendly to try and put words into another person's mouth.

Anything Mathsci wants to say to me can be said on my talk page. I have nothing to hide but my identity, which I believe is consistent with Wikipedia policies, or used to be.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are chosen for their good judgment. Policy at Wikipedia is descriptive, not normative. Written policies reflect what is actually done, not the other way around. At any moment in time written policy might or might not reflect the actual state of play. When a situation arises, administrators have room to decide what is best. There is no requirement to instantly block somebody at the first sign of outing. It really depends whether the outing was hostile or accidental, egregious or borderline. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn; sometimes the best chance for peace -- whether with someone hostile or otherwise -- is dialog. You've said "It is a FACT that I have seen not the slightest hint of apology from Mathsci...", but this thread commenced exactly because there is credible reason to believe that it may be possible to resolve the differences that maintain the situation you don't like. You don't have to give any personal information at all to do so, and nobody here would suggest you do (obvious reasons). But dialog to try and see if it can be put to rest? Sure. Thats what we're suggesting you do consider. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS check

Can you please check ticket#2008091810048421, which refers to Image:Palin nowhere.jpg, and advise whether it confirms the CC release claimed on the page? Stifle (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this, got it sorted by someone else. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Hi,

Do you think it would be a good idea to create an offical "Arbcom election" policy page, describing the process for each election? Instead of linking to "background" diffs/links, it would make sense, to me, to include it all in one page. It would obviously describe the process, which arbitrators' terms end, the ruling on age, identification, the setting up the pages, the voting system etc. Currently, it's all rather a mess on talk pages. What do you think? -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

broadly against "creation of policy" except for matters where a certain standard does need nailing to the floor - admin conduct and requirements, user conduct, major editorial requirements, copyright, user access and rights, for example. By contrast the Arb election is a well managed process by the community, and evolves in a very orderly fashion year by year - it would be good if other pages evolved in such a well managed fashion. Easy to check, too. Not really seeing a need either for a "policy" or to change this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well perhaps not a policy. Just a page that contains the rulings and such in one easy place. (So you don't have to keep linking that diff to James F's announcement). -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy FT2's Day!

User:FT2 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as FT2's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear FT2! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your rangeblock

See: User talk:91.108.201.25. User requesting unblock; your rangeblock notes said to checkuser before any other actions. Since you were the checkuser that made the block, I defer to you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well known vandal range (used by the self-named "thousand socks" vandal). Some valid users on the range. Best explain he can't edit without an account, check if he can use his home IP range (the IP range owner is a cellphone provider so this may be a cellphone range or a home dsl range). The other handling would be to point him to the account creation email list, and consider IP block exempt with the usual warning ({{ipexemptgranted}}). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I used the {{rangeblocked}} template, which seems to cover this. Thanks for your response and suggestions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bug in cactions v4

Hey FT2, thanks for the heads-up. That version shouldn't really have gone live when it did; I was intending to do some quick compatibility testing, but in the middle of everything my ISP decided to initiate the 512kbps-to-4Mbps upgrade that we'd been waiting on, so I couldn't finish up!

Anyway, everything should now be in full working order. The tool should still work just as before, although in order to keep the original tabs functionality, you will need to update your JS (currently employing the obsolete ctOriginalTabs) to the new configuration system; see User:Haza-w/Caction tool for the documentation. If you find any more bugs or have any queries or feature requests, please get in touch. Thanks, and enjoy! haz (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have fixed it :) Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Message

Hi FT2. Elonka posted a clickable link to my private message which I have been forced to remove for the moment. Please could you explain to Elonka that she is not being helpful in (a) reading this private message (b) posting the clickable link. I have left a message on her talk page. Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the file under a different name. The name of the file will be posted, with more detailed directions, once things have calmed down. I am not at all happy at the recent postings of either Elonka or Shell. Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BBHS

Hi. I was just wondering if you actually post the CU findings anywhere on WP once you've ran it. I'm very intrigued to see what other accounts he has been using, but if that isn't CU policy or whatever, that's fine too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

David L Cook article

FT2, by chance did you happen to get the email that I sent you in regards to the abovementioned article. If you could respond when you get a chance I would sure appreciate it. Thank you so much. Canyouhearmenow 12:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

MIPRO article

Hi FT2, "MIPRO" article has been protected and can be edited only by administrators.I am new for wikipedia and looking for help. I would appreciate if you can take a look and give me some comments to achieve this project. Highly appreciate for your assistance. --Wilson0324 (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer48 issue

I have a bunch of the relevant information, but I am on a shoddy connection and coming up on a lot of work in real life I need to do, I will email you what I can right now if possible, but will be unable to provide details or answer questions in a timely manner. --Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You have email

You have email. Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your IRC Ramblings

FT2, you have been commenting at length on IRC #admins about the latest debacle. Implying I should have taken it to the channel ops first. Actually, I did. The Channel's owner [26] who was dismissive, patronising and pompous. So I took it to a wider audience. Its a pity you did not see fit to comment on wiki instead of reserving your comments for the secretive IRC. Perhaps you should decide whether you want to be an Arb or a Chan Op. Clearly IRC is more important to you or perhaps you see no difference. Either way if Admins can call editors "fucking wankers" on #admins without disgust, actions and sanctions from Arbs, then obviously the reverse is now OK. Giano (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On a more civil note, it would be good for separation of powers if Arbs were not serving as channel ops. How can you all be expected to supervise yourselves? Jehochman ^Talk 11:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Giano. But in fact, I wasn't talking about your actions, or what you should have done. I was talking about the user in #admins who saw any matter they don't agree with, yet somehow did not see fit to bring it to formal attention, which is what they are repeatedly told/asked to do.

On a similar topic, I also commented on the fact that if there was a systemic issue there, then one would expect to see a wider range of cases being brought up. But the only cases that come up with regularity seem to be disproportionately related to sporadic venting about yourself or your actions. The likelihood is that if there was a genuine issue, rather than just a number of vocal disgruntled IRC-opposers, that wouldn't be what we'd see. What we do see is a level of hypocrisy, whereby there are users who demand civility off-wiki while vehemently opposing it for themselves even on-wiki, and who do not endorse admins discussing cases between themselves in front of 50 or more admins in a channel any admin can visit by right, but don't oppose when they or their wiki-friends engage extensively in email discussion that not one other person can review for good conduct.

This sounds purely like trying to make something from actually, very little. It gets tiresome. In my last review of channel conduct I looked at every case for some 6 months alleged to have involved #admins misconduct, and most were misinformed, or "blue sky". If there is a problem then I repeat what I said on-wiki and to the admins channel - any admin who sees conduct in that channel that they do not feel comfortable with, may speak up, or contact a channel operator to discuss (in public or private as they wish). There are enough of those (~20) that I don't buy "I couldn't get James' attention" as an excuse. Any given admin or user may be away a while. The admins on that channel - and not you - will usually know which channel operators are around. There are 50-60 admins there regularly, including admins of all views; I don't buy that they are every last one subject to some kind of groupthink so that not even one would complain if something problematic happened.

I also see a further hypocrisy in that there is a clear route to handling any conduct concerns and all channel users know it, and know it gets followed up. It seems one or more admins will not say if they see a concern (right or wrongly) -- but will pass the log to someone else by email, to inflame and stir. It doesn't work that way. Like the wiki, there is a formal way to address admin conduct, it gets used as needed, and all admins who use the IRC channel know of it. The admin either has a legitimate concern (and should possibly contact a channel operator themselves in the first instance), or doesn't (and has no need to gossip about it). Up to them to choose which.

If you want to discuss this further, please do. But I'm saying it in simple terms right now.

• The channel is open to all admins in good standing, by right. Not just "some".
• Any admin whatsoever of our 1600+ who want to watch, take part or verify what goes on, are welcome.
• The constitution of the channel allows for a level of venting, as do almost any off-wiki communication - including email.
• Administrators are users trusted by the community. By definition, a channel which as part of its constitution allows any admin to join in, is obtaining a very broad spectrum of all kinds of users who are trusted by the community. If genuinely untoward conduct took place it is extremely unlikely that it would not be seen by at least one admin who would indeed consider it untoward. There are 50-70 admins there (or who can see it in scrollback) at all times of day. This is an advantage of an unfiltered right to participate. The sole criteria are 1/ gaining communal trust via adminship, and 2/ having the wish to use IRC. A number of users apparently use IRC mainly to help watch others' conduct or because they want to check for themselves what goes on, and that is perfectly okay.
• Any admins who do participate and feel a higher standard is needed or was not shown in a given instance, may say so. It can also be brought up in private if felt necessary.
• Any admins who do not participate may choose to do so, and see for themselves. It is an open invitation.
• Any admins who have a concern about anything in the channel, there is a well respected route to get it discussed, exactly like there is on-wiki. It includes "raise it yourself in the channel" and ends with "take it to the Group Contacts if even the higher level ops ignore it".
• If not even one admin states a concern in public or private that way - and they all know the channel ops take concerns seriously because they've it happen - that's a sign that there may not be a problem.
• If an admin in the channel - knowing that concerns do get addressed - still does nothing except send "moan emails" to others, that's like avoiding any comment or dispute resolution on-wiki, but sending a moaning email to a wiki-friend... its venting; it achieves nothing.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry FT2, it's probably my poor English but when I read "If not even one admin states a concern in public or private that way - and they all know the channel ops take concerns seriously because they've it happen - that's a sign that there may not be a problem." and much of your other phrasing I really cannot understand you, I know we have had this problem before. I'm afraid very little which you say makes sense even when I can understand it. The only reason that I seem to be the only person disgruntled with IRC, and its favoured topic of IRC conversation is that I am the one who blows the whistle most loudly and often - others do not realise or don't care that their blocks are often the results of block shopping in IRC. However, do not underestimate the contempt that is felt for IRC#admins amongst the rank and file editors. I notice that when one of you (by that I mean the IRC#admins) is challenged all the rest pile out of IRC into Wikipedia to comment and squeak. A pity such people don't spend more time here writing etc. Further comment and discussion with you is useless, you obviously feel that Wikipedia and IRC, and your roles there, are as one. IRC is one of Wikipedia's most divisive ills. It serves no purpose other than to make its inhabitants feel important. Which says more about them than it does about the project they fail so abysmally to serve. I'm afraid most of #admins residents are so brainwashed as to its value that debate is futile. The Arbcom, IRC and most aspirants to Wiki-power are presently as one [27], each promoting, without shame, the elevation of the other. God help the project. Giano (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not intended to be confusing (sorry for the difference in styles), and yes we have.

I struggle a bit myself because there's a lot of assumptions to deal with. If I'm not exact, or don't explain fully, someone may try to play games or claim it says things I don't mean. So I feel I have to be thorough, which ends up as what you feel as wordy and confusing.

I think you're misinformed about lots of things, but it seems so fixed I have almost given up on changing that. Almost, that is. There's always a chance. There isn't much else I can do except point out the errors when they come up, and restate the obvious. If you or anyone else wants to try dialog, or mediation, or any other way to get a more productive discussion going, I'd be all for it. If anyone thinks they could help that to happen, it would be appreciated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There was obvious violation of IRC policy that needs to be addressed. In the present case there is a complaint, and good evidence. What's the consequence? Where is the deterrence to prevent such things from happening again? Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re FT2: Daniel has been inactive both on IRC and on WP since the incident. It would be nice if some channel op would confirm they have attempted to contact Daniel about the incident through other means. I agree with Jehochman that some sort of public announcement of the resolution would be beneficial. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While I am all in favor of mounting Daniel's head on a pike on the city walls as a warning to others, some tiny, irrational part of me wonders whether there should be any consequences for Giano telling me in email, "Fuck off you daft bastard." Thatcher 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In an ideal world, sure. On the noticeboard I commented that comments like Daniel's shouldn't be tolerated on #wikipedia-en-admins and that revoking his access wouldn't be going too far - but I do observe the irony that the complainant in this case has a long history of being the target of similar complaints. Avruch ^T 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano has been warned and censured in the past. This creates an expectation of symmetrical treatment when he is the target of incivility. Tu quoque is not a defense. Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, a private insult requires a private resolution. A public insult requires either a public apology (if offered freely), or else public censure of some sort. Perhaps a warning or short ban from IRC would be a measured response to this sort of incident. A statement to the IRC channel that such messages are not welcome would also help. Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano's conduct was hardly surprising. If I had logs sent to me saying "To Majorly, who invariably reads this: You are a fucking wanker" I'd be fuming. The comment was made to get a reaction. Daniel isn't oblivious to Giano's history, so should have known better. Giano doesn't just go making uncivil comments for no reason though. I have personally had good, albeit brief interaction with him. He knows he's not the most civil of people, but the fact is, Giano is not, by definition, someone who is always angry and uncivil. His uncivil reaction was solely because he was provoked, needlessly. Daniel wasn't responding to anything, since Giano wasn't in the channel. The comment was made to get a reaction, and unsurprisingly, it was a bad one. Daniel shouldn't have made the inappropriate comment in the first place. I can pretty much forgive Giano's uncivil comments on AN/I because he was unjustly attacked.

And indeed, private email is private - sort it out between yourselves. It's natural to talk about people, and to like and dislike people - no doubt people discuss me all the time between themselves. However, such discussion should not take place in a forum of 50-60 people, which leaks like a sieve, because it is not by definition private, so it is therefore public. Such behaviour is not excusable in a place like that. Al Tally ^talk 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For the last year, as the Arbcom fully intended, I have been watching and suffering screaming little IRCadmins running to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement with "Wicked Giano has said this" "Evil Giano has said that" Most of these occasions have been immediately following one of your number promoting the event on IRC (Don't deny it, I have 24 logs without break for the last two years). This Arbcom has been obsessed with civility. Personally, I think an obsession with civility is a very lower middle class trait, but so be it. However, now the boot appears to be on the other foot. However, Let's not forget (as I posted on ANI):

This is all totally amazing isn't it? I assist in the unblock of an editor who was wrongly blocked. For this, I am then attacked on IRC. I then post on wiki requesting not to be attacked on IRC. A "Pseudo-Admin" then says I imagined it. Then logs prove I did not - he retracts. Then I'm attacked on IRC again "fucking wanker" So I ask James Forester to ensure it does not happen again. He asks for proof. He gets it. I'm then attacked by many IRC users here for complaining about it. Funny old world isn't it? I'm afraid, IRC wants us all just to put up and shut up

Now FT2, your gang are undeniably in the wrong, and for once I am personally campaigning for the justice I frequently campaign, and demand, for others, and I want it and I'll have it. Your IRCadmins can belittle me (as they are doing) all over Wikipedia, but you, the Arbcom and J Wales all know that won't stop me. So don't you dare try and sweep this under the Arbcom's filthy carpet. Giano (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I've tried very hard to cultivate a good relationship with you Giano - very hard indeed. But this is twisted slanderous crap. Firstly, you know that I am Doc glasgow, since we've corresponded on the subject very civilly via e-mail some weeks ago. Secondly, I retracted nothing. You said you'd been discussed in the "previous couple of hours", I checked the logs and discovered you were WRONG - and politely pointed it out. I subsequently discovered that the conversation was some hours before that (from a time I had not logs) and politely informed you of that. You accused me of calling you a liar, and then accused me of being a liar, when patently you'd made the (honest) mistake. I've already pointed that out to you, but now you twist it again. Not serious, except that twisting facts to make people look bad is your modus operandi. The fact is that you are simply not interested in truth, civility, or who you insult and what you distort as long as you can be outraged and fight pathetic little wars. Well, I'm calling you out. I'm fed up with saying "Giano is an excellent wikipedian, but we whish he'd just be a lot less......", let's call a spade a spade, you behaviour repeatedly is rude, untruthful and hypocritical, and a net detriment to this project. I am fed up with people making allowances for you. Someone called you a "wanker" on IRC? Boo hoo. Yes IRC has some problems, yes that incivility wasn't good. But your feigned outrage at personal attacks and incivility and your demand for satisfaction when you engage in the same regularly with impunity is sickening. There is an honest disagreement about IRC and its capacity to stunt the wikiprocess, and sane people can engage in it, but I suspect that even among those who dislike IRC, the sane are tired of your pathetic tactics. (Oh, and please don't bother e-mailing me with abuse in response to this - I'm saying it openly on wiki.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Get back whence you came. Giano (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

IRC (section break)

It is a pity that the issues again deteriorated to a level of personal quarreling. It does not help to address the problem. Jechochman's point about the separation of powers raises the most important problem [28] [29]. One of the reasons why oversight does not work is lack of separation of powers when Arbs are also serving as channel ops. Indeed, the basic idea of power separation is to prevent the situation when people supervise their own selves.

Further, if IRC logs are only available to the IRCers themselves, it is impossible for regular editors to know whether they have been the victims of an illicit activity at IRC, and therefore there is no public liason function for the chanops. For example in one of the examples here (see #3) same DanielB called Miranda with a B-word (a grave insult to any female person.) Miranda did not see the log and if I have not raised it, it would have never been brought to anyone's attention. Same applies to the example #4 when Mike Halterman called Moncrief "an idiot and a moron". Giano is in a much better position than an average editor to raise complaints as he is more likely to find out when he is abused. But there can be no effective ombudsmanship if this function is assigned to the channel regulars themselves. --Irpen 21:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Irpen - whilst I strongly disapprove of incivility, and indeed have taken action on it myself, I do try to respect boundaries. I have not taken action for incivility of various users by email, on other blogs and forums, or other websites, email lists and chats, even where they were horribly uncivil or engaged in personal attacks. That's because what's off wiki, with few exceptions, stays off wiki. Giano himself is a strong proponent of the idea that civility policy should not exist and should not apply to him or other users even on-wiki. I get the feeling I'm being asked to condone a hypocritical view, whereby incivility on-wiki by some users is not a problem, but incivility even off-wiki is a pitchfork and hanging offence if others speak against them. Before I dive in, I would like someone who has strongly taken the stances 1/ Giano's so-called incivility or bad faith on-wiki is not in fact a problem, 2/ Other users' incivility, bad faith, or attacks on users on other public forums should not be acted upon on-wiki, but 3/ even off-wiki incivility against Giano is actionable on-wiki, to reconcile these views for me, and discuss them thoroughly.

Understand that I don't personally care who it's about, or who by, and also that the incivility is being dealt with regardless. But I don't like it being used for gaming, and I think there are good odds that (intentionally or otherwise) that's how it's being used in this case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2, my post is about an institutional problem not the particular incident, and not even Giano. Giano is not the only person who was victim of IRC abuse. I am trying to steer the discussion away from Giano and towards looking for a solution in general as currently the system by its faulty design is bound to produce more abuse. --Irpen 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is, and commendably you have sought to discuss real issues and concerns. The thing is, it's relying and giving weight to data that is 1/ disputed (of course), and which is 2/ being pushed by emotive rhetoric and mudslinging, which tends to bury rational debate. If there are concerns about IRC, then I have said many times, lets discuss the actual data and reality, and discuss cases and examples and norms. So far the response by those most vividly portraying an evil IRC cabal, has been to try and do everything except that. When I check - and I have reported those cases where admins do misbehave so there should be no doubt on that - then almost every time I find the complaint is being gamed, the complaint is based on flawed data, or that the complaint is released via a "moan email" - the admin who released it didn't choose to allow any form of bad conduct handling to take place.

Suppose a wiki user did the same - "Oh, I didn't do dispute resolution, I just stirred up by email, but avoided all dispute resolution attempts because I don't believe wiki dispute resolution does anything". What would we do? We'd say "Sorry, but you need to do it anyway." I repeat what I have said on numerous occasions - all issues reported do get looked at fairly. In those issues that are exploited for drama value rather than taken up in a genuine good-faith attempt to resolve a conduct issue, the admin has themselves made the choice that the matter doesn't merit action, but only moaning by email. If they try properly - and "I emailed James" is not "trying properly" - then fine, take it further. But an admin doesn't get to deliberately on every occasion sidestep all complaint handling we've got, then complain it's not handled. Thats just daft.

My prior question still stands though, and if you or anyone else can answer it capably and logically it would be good.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2, again your response does not address the point I am raising. I am not discussing any particular examples. I am saying that:

1. An institutional oversight to be effective cannot be designed such that people oversee their own selves.
2. There cannot be an effective public liason function for the chanops as the victims of IRC abuse may not know about the incident.

--Irpen 00:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And I'm saying your data is inaccurate. Specifically, 1. Admin IRC misconduct allegations are not ultimately overseen only or purely by its own users, in fact the setup would frustrate even attempted coverups of #admins abuse, and broadly does so very effectively, 2. Disagree - please cite me an actual case from any time in 2008, where this has been a genuine and serious problem, if this needs discussing further. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point 1.

"Admin IRC misconduct allegations are not ultimately overseen only or purely by its own users, in fact the setup would frustrate even attempted coverups of #admins abuse, and broadly does so very effectively"

Please rephrase. --Irpen 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dwight D. Eisenhower used to obfuscate when he did not want to answer a question. I am sure that FT2 is not doing that, but FT2 may want to check appearances. Being correct is well and good, but being perceived as correct is both harder and more important. Per Strunk and White, "Don't waste words." Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do so Irpen, but busy during much of today. Elections and all that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Will look forward to it. --Irpen 19:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

With the elections being over maybe you will have time to rephrase this now for me? --Irpen 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I got some of this drafted before the weekend. See contribs - I was away unexpectedly from Thursday till yesterday late PM. I'm on it now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what my question was. I simply asked you to rephrase this:

"Admin IRC misconduct allegations are not ultimately overseen only or purely by its own users, in fact the setup would frustrate even attempted coverups of #admins abuse, and broadly does so very effectively"

so that I can be sure I understand you correctly with my En-3. I am not asking you to draft anything beyond that. --Irpen 01:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Search features discussion on wikitech-l

Hi FT2. I saw your comments on the wikitech-l mailing list about the new search functions. I'm not subscribed yet (will do one day!) but I wanted someone to point out to that list that the new features are being used (I tried a "for now" update at WP:SEARCHING), and one of the examples is this search, which is "intitle:blp prefix:wikipedia:" (I'm using that search to help update the BLP documentation and list stuff at WT:BLP) - you might also want to point out that namespace searches using the "prefix" parameter don't seem to work unless the trailing colon is used. Not sure if that is a feature or a bug. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I see you're still doing the hard work. Just thought I would say hello and let you know I am around. JodyB _talk 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WT:MENTOR follow-up

Following up the RfC, I've started a thread at WT:MENTOR here. I've been perusuing the history of that page, and it is quite interesting. Maybe that page should be used more? It also seems to clearly lay out what the difference is between voluntary and involuntary mentorship. It might also help if people link to that page more often (the RfArb clarification thread failed to link to WP:MENTOR). Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

copypasted rant

I was in the process of reverting Special:Contributions/143.53.5.80 after blocking them when I noticed your reply at (errrr!?!) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_56. I remember the exact same rant being posted to various noticeboards last week (see [30]). Can you have a look and unblock the IP (I hardblocked it, since it looked like someone might be autoblocked and no other contribs were visible) if necessary? Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mod objective uses a range of IPs, so all IPs in that range are affected. The odds are good that most of the editing (and most of the disruptive editing) from that range is Mod objective. If it isn't, or it's contested, or events prove otherwise, then passing the request to OTRS to verify identity would be very sensible. But in the meantime the vandal range is soft blocked, and if it turns out this is a valid user, then we can find ways to let them edit. At the moment, however, unless other evidence is found, CU and behavior both suggest strongly that 143.53.5.80 is Mod objective. If I've missed something you're getting at, please let me know, and if you want further information to check the block (off-wiki to prevent BEANS) also let me know. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope I was double guessing my actions after I saw your reply there. Since you too think this is User:Mod objective, I'll leave my block that way ^^. He's getting annoying with his campaign against Jayjg... Thanks :) (I can't access IRC where I am currently) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

General questions

Would it perhaps make more sense to post general questions to the general question page only? "Individual questions" are for questions that are asked exclusively to that candidate, and "General questions" are questions that the candidate has taken from the General List and responded to.

I'm not usually in support of process wonkery, but consistency would make sense in this case—otherwise, the whole general questions system is likely to become redundant and indeed facilitate repeating one's own work twice or three times over per candidate.

In other words—could you make a point of not posting your general questions (which are very good, by-the-by...) onto every candidate's questions page, but rather allowing them to copy your question over to their individual page as they wish and/or as they answer them.

AGK 19:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Two reasons I didn't - which caught me by surprise as I like the idea of the general questions page and fully endorse it myself (and said so).

The big one is, the general questions page is suggested to be optional. Candidates themselves are implied to choose those they want to answer, and it's implied they are free to let go those they don't. (To answer a general question, copy it over onto [your questions page]...) By contrast individual questions are much more noticeable if ignored. These may be questions that few users might ask (or ask this way), because few users are on Arbcom already. I'm not intending to vote as such; rather I'm seeing how candidates handle such questions, in lieu, and in the public venue. The difference in suggesting that any or all are "optional if wished", as opposed to "will be noticed if ignored", feels important for that reason.

The second reason is because although questions may start similar and seem similar, in fact they may not be. I might not be asking the same questions to all candidates, although for a number of candidates they're (hopefully) a good starting point.

Had the general questions been implied as "expected to be handled by all candidates", and the directions been that any remaining unanswered general questions will be posted to users question pages on Nov 17, then I would have been more likely to leave them as general questions. I didn't spot this aspect till the pages went live on Nov 10 though.

I still think a page of general questions is highly appropriate, and completely support the idea. My concerns were that optionality and 17 Nov posting date, wasn't the context I was looking for, so I took the other option, which fitted well with customizing different follow-up questions. Input for next year perhaps? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, yes. Perhaps we could transclude the general questions list (in a collapse box, maybe?) onto each candidate's individual question page, to increase visibility? I suspect a fair few candidates just don't know they're supposed to copy over the questions. AGK 07:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII

This is about the Mathsci unblock. The reason I call your attention to it, other than the citing of the Proabivouac unblock connection, is that people are drawing conclusions from the lack of a reblock. You know the circumstances of that; and I have no wish at all to divert the RfC onto Mathsci, for reasons you'll appreciate. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, FT2, if you have time to offer a view at the RfC, I would be very interested in your recollections of that situation. Thanks, --Elonka 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi FT2, I know that your recent edits to that policy were in good faith and for what it is worth I do not think that the changes I made were substantive. If you think they were, all I can say is that this was not my intention and I am sure we can come to a satisfying compromise. I really think that the matter of under what circumstances someone must consult concerning a block needs first to be established in the instructions for the blocking administrator. If you feel that in addition a discussion of when an unblocker needs to consult has to be later in the article, well, I am sure we can work out a way to do both. I didn't see any harm in moving the content closer to the front of the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only revert I've made is of a paragraph that was added. This was largely a word-for-word duplicate of existing content though. It also greatly changed the point (thus omitting the actual point and duplicating replacement points that were in the policy already). Explained further at WT:BLOCK.

If you simply mean "we should explain what blocking admins should do before explaining what reviewing admins should do" then re-ordering the two sections might be an idea. Discuss there? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guideline

I am proposing a guideline to help editors deal with a particular type of NPOV problem. Can you have a look? Wikipedia:Advocacy. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! And a well-reasoned support, too. Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A comment you need to read

You don't seem to have responded to my concerns regarding Hoffman. I hope you will read this one and say something about it. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Checkuser

Hello, would you be available to do an emergency checkuser on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ponty Pirate under WP:SUICIDE? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 20, 2008 @ 01:39

Talking to you on IRC - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 20, 2008 @ 01:52

WP:RFAR/CDS#Motion to lift Coolcat, Davenbelle, Steretek Case Remedy

Just a reminder. Your statement implies you will be waiting for a while. :) -- Cat ^chi? 09:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing to do with User:Giano II

...Well.... not a lot...
I posted this at Deskana's talkpage, but it would appear that Giano charm offensive (emphasis on offensive) has rather disinclined said arb, so I am requesting that you convey my concerns addressed there.

FWIW, I have been expecting some sanction since the DG block was overturned and while less than enthusiastic about it can quite understand that G's shotgun approach means the collateral damage incurred cannot be endured indefinitely. I would suggest that some ex-Arbs and past recipients of G's ire could do well to conduct themselves in the way you have - things might not descend so quickly into the fractiousness currently on view. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't related to DG, and it's in no way connected. But thanks for the note, and I'll pass your message on. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RFAR Giano drama statement

Your non-statement at RFAR is over 1000 words long. Please refactor it. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight question

"At some point, an edit FT2 made to Zoophilia was oversighted." Is this correct, and if so why was the edit oversighted? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on the various SlimVirgin case matters now, and those (plus a discussion page I was drafting) have to take priority to Damian-inspired matters. It's been asked once before in a Damian thread, and commented then. Obviously I've asked round myself since. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2, in the spirit of Hanlon's razor, it would probably benefit Wikipedia to explain, concisely, why there is no conspiracy. I have a feeling that the truth of the matter is quite innocuous. For instance, it is well-known that you work on many difficult conflicts replaced to neutrality. It does not surprise me at all that you might edit some topics that could trigger emotional responses from some editors. Those editors might say you are pro-(drop in horrible sin), when in fact you were just neutralizing some anti-(drop in horrible sin) bias. Perhaps somebody with oversight privileges was a bit over zealous in trying to counteract harassment directed at you by banned users. Banned users have a tendency to jump on any issue they can find and beat it endlessly. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Please explain why there is no conspiracy"?

That's quite a strange request.

The "oversight edit" claims are apparently re-raised here, with the apparent rationale that although not relevant to SlimVirgin's actions, they may provide a motive for the conspiracy she portrays. Unfortunately, they were first mentioned to me in July, long ago. Back then the oversight log was broken so nobody could check it. (I was told it was working a month or two back, have done my own digging since, and have since worked out what went on as stated above.) That's a long time ago now. If Giano or SlimVirgin repeating a banned user's claims would be significant months on, then I'm not seeing it.

Nothing new has come up in the last few days that hasn't in some form or other been touted by a couple of banned users for many months. These matters have had a high level of independent scrutiny and review. A wide range of people have reviewed these matters and concluded they lacked much if any merit. Conversely the ex-user(s) "pushing" them have a deep grudge, and are evidenced as grossly misrepresenting key points of fact. Some will remember me saying that I'm not really inclined to react to drama and provocation. So the odds that suddenly in November, when this is old news, this stuff suddenly becomes worthy of a reaction, is in the words of another razor, unlikely. Nonetheless, to the extent credible users have asked on wiki (as opposed to informal discussion elsewhere), then it's appropriate to examine the matters on-wiki.

I'm considering addressing this issue once and for all, thoroughly and carefully. And as some on-wiki and at WR will remember me saying, I tend not to say things that I can't back up if needed.

I have a draft approach which I hope will deal with all major queries of genuine merit thoroughly. There will be conditions intended to ensure productiveness and parity. I'm intending to post on one other matter for discussion (slightly overlapping) some time early next week (it would have been this week, which wasn't expected to be busy). So I'll probably make the initial postings on both of these early next week.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• FT2, these are not "claims" the oversight happned, and it happened to your edits, during your election to Arbcom. You say "A wide range of people have reviewed these matters and concluded they lacked much if any merit" - well who? All I have seen is others with oversight rights admit it happened and that it happened against policy. The content of the edits is immaterial the fact remains that edits were tampered with, with the intention to conceal. Thus, there is a possibility this affected you candicacy and the result of the election. Giano (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into it too, and asked around. I couldn't do it much earlier than I did, because

1. I didn't know of it myself until told, and
2. At the point I heard, the oversight log wasn't working and nobody could check. I was told it was scheduled to be fixed "at some time". (The removal was temporary; basically the log had no paging built in so it was getting too long to display over time, some 6000-7000 entries or so, so it was removed for a few months this year while paging was waiting to be added.)

I heard it was fixed a month or so ago, and went back to check this for myself and find out what had gone on. Given what I have heard, I'm not completely happy, but I can see what's gone on and how/why. I'll come back to this first half of next week and let's look at it (and any other matters) thoroughly at that time. I was not expecting to be busy on wiki this week and I'm away the weekend. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid FT2 you are rather missing the point. It is not for you to chose when and if to look at it. It happened, and it was an action performed by a friend of yours, and it can be said that it altered the way you were perceived by the electorate during an election. There is nothing more to say. It is now for others to decide if the oversight was within or without policy. If it found to be outside of the policy or unethical then there is no option but to declare your election to the Arbcom null and void. You should be suspended from the Arbcom while this matter is investigtaed by others. Giano (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you promote yourself above arbcom now?

I see, so I am wondering now if you think you are Jimbo Wales...that your blocks are not reversible...that if indeed someone dares to reverse you, especially if they have already been the target of a prolonged, persistant campaign of hate because they stand guard where others rarely dare, you'll shove as big a shaft down their throats as possible. Did you not stop to consider the history of Giano...that his retaliations over Gerard's block would be both forceful and unbecoming? Was there anything else to expect? And...your history with Giano is one that is circumspect as far as you being the next one to issue him a block. This is a wee bit scary for mere peons like myself...dare I ever go against what the major powers that be want, where does that leave myself and those who are even less "tenured"? SlimVirgin makes mistakes, she also places herself in harms way in article space, in policy space and has endured more online Wikipedia and offline harassment than anyone else I can think of. She is also one of the ones others can count on for defense whenever they are being harassed in real life. The biggest problem with this situation now isn't that SlimVirgin was "right" or "wrong" to revert your block on Giano...but that you decided to commence an enforcement/case/whatever you want to call it in RETALIATION for her reverting YOU, a sitting member of arbcom. This is just plain scary...and makes me wonder if I need to go back to my corner and let the power junkies run this website, or start my feuds up again and call a spade a spade when I see it, as I do here, not knowing what powerful enemies I might make if I dare go against their demands.--MONGO 07:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, MONGO. We don't play games like you suggest with status. There are 1600 or so administrators. There are many who will "place themselves" in difficult places, and do so without doing the wrong things SlimVirgin is repeatedly evidenced as having done. If SlimVirgin after 4 arbcom cases cannot figure out to do right by the community with the tools, then she like any may be called to account for it. Two other admins both wanted to take up an RFAR over this; one had gone so far as to draft their statement. The latter on reading mine (which I'd already drafted) said to go ahead as it was more precisely worded.

You need to check your history carefully -- compare and contrast Geogre, who also has used admin tools to help Giano, and whom at RFAR I voted against the initial proposala of sanction because they were too severe. Why the difference? SlimVirgin has been called to account 4 times and blatantly was continuing; Geogre has not. This is nothing to do with personality, and everything to do with assessing harm to the project. I'm sorry if that perspective isn't one you agree with. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I can guess which two other admins wanted to see some sanctions. The other cases Slim has been involved in...most of those look exactly like what I was trying to suggest above. Perhaps I have never been under the wrath of Giano...which, I would go so far as to say, would be easy compared to the hate mongering I have endured at the hands of 9/11 CTers. Hence my suggestions numerous times to get over it and get over ourselves. As far as the mythology that SlimVirgin is a "problem admin"...much (but not all) of that has been perpetuated by those that have, as I mentioned, been misusing Wikipedia and offsite venues as a place for building that illusion. Wikipedia will go on whether you, me or SlimVirgin edits after tomorrow...but that is simply not the point. I know what it feels like to have a band of fools trying to do whatever they can to "wreck" a Wikipedia career...and until one in particular ceased editing after being told that his SPA contributions were unhelpful and he was topic banned, I had no rest from that guy. Slim, on the other hand, has been under a constant state of attack, not by a few, but by a lot of, what have oftentimes been a conglomeration of editors who have been determined to "get her". I admit that not every compliant about her is invalid. Decoding the complaints of validity from those that are being presented by jackasses is easy...if one cares to do so. Rash decisions to do something just because the loudest voices are those with an axe to grind is worrisome. I'll not have to worry about the repercussions of overturning your admin actions anyway since I'll never be an admin again....lucky me I guess.--MONGO 09:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you probably wouldn't guess who the two were. If they want to say, they will. Since I care less about "mythology" or "politics", and I'm part of no clique, it's easy, I evaluate cases for myself, based on behaviors I see, and pay little interest to hearsay and "received wisdom" about who some may claim are "good" or "bad" users. I don't have knowledge that SlimVirgin is a "problem admin" in some people's eyes, I do have knowledge she acted very poorly in an Arbitration Enforcement matter, and in a way that would damage enforcement on other cases. So the "others" you refer to can rumor about her all they like, for or against. If any of them wanted me to take up their banner, or to "get" her (or anyone), they'd better be prepared to show me diffs and evidence that I 1/ agree with, and 2/ concur shows a current, active problem requiring that action. They'd also better be prepared that I might decide the best solution is initially discussion, to check what's up for myself. In this case obviously it was not my view that lesser handling would resolve the problem. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The message arbcom is sending with this action is that even well tenured admins who reverse your admin actions is going to have hell to pay for it.--MONGO 18:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite that as "Even well tenured admins who habitually disregard significant communal norms and standards will eventually have to answer for it", and I'd agree. People who've reversed an admin action (mine, anyones, doesnt matter whose) with good reasons, trying to follow good practice, tend to get respect. The message here is high admin standards, not partiality. This could have been any admin, on any side, of any dispute, who decided "I know I've been told to heed conduct norms but let's not do so". The community is a fickle thing, but while norms exist that have a high "buy-in", then we are each expected to follow their agreed leads in almost all cases. Most do. In this case, one didn't. The case was picked up by numerous admins, rather than wheel warring or squabbling, it was passed to arbitration, and cross referenced to an exceptional number of past cases by the same admin where standards were poor, and decided.

You need to stop thinking of this as "long standing admin censured", or martyrdom -- and think in terms of "long standing admin with habitual poor standards finally told 'enough's enough' and made clearer that change really was expected". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) More specifically, where you are with me - a lot safer than you think. Because if you aren't doing recognizable harm to the project, and have done nothing damaging yourself on a given matter, then I'll actively protect you against others' unjust claims and bad admin blocks, as I did the near-banned Rambutan/Porcupine whom I unblocked and forcibly told off the blocking admin for unjustified blocking when most didn't know, or didn't care to check. If you are disruptive but can be reasoned with I will be patient and try to resolve it by dispute resolution even if you are attacking the heck out of me at the time, as I did in offering Peter Damian mediation around 3 months ago (!). If you can't be reasoned with and action is needed I'll try to find the minimum action that will help you to understand it has to end, as I did Geogre in his case. If none of that works I will not be redirecting you to clowns, or blocking "out of process", but will try to sadly take the action I feel needed, with respect, and waiting for you to understand that change is needed, right up till the point the decision's made.

I can't be everywhere, I can't handle all of the many cases where stuff goes wrong -- god knows Wikipedia is vast already -- but a small range of them, I can and will, like any admin. I prioritize in doing so, to avoid those which the wider community is likely to handle anyway. In between I'll be in the background backing up communal decisions, improving matters. Why? So editors who "just want to edit well", can have a better experience and less "downtime" and discouragement due to disruptive users.

If you feel there is wrong done, I'll explain the basics of the decision openly so others can judge it; if a bad call is made at RFAR I won't be afraid to try and catch what I see as errors of principle; if it's a community matter such as Poetlister or Archtransit I'll be open with the community as much as I'm able. If an admin is misusing the tools or their "weight", or misbehaving, and nobody else feels able to say so, I will be willing to look at the case and consider how best to reduce any problems arising, and take any backlash involved in that decision.

If there is an Arbcom case where I am involved, I will actively have a stand up battle within Arbcom if it's needed, to ensure even my attacker has the most neutral hearing, as I did with Peter Damian's case in May, to ensure the deliberations of others would not be circulated to myself. I had to forcefully demand on that some 3 or 4 times. But I did.

That is your protection. And yes it is that direct and that ruthlessly neutral. Mostly, like any decisions any admin makes, they are subject to at least some overview - in this case for example the community had made its view known before very clearly, so it wasn't hard to figure out at the time. I'm sorry some will be upset that my views don't always match their wishes. But that's inevitable in most disputes at this level. Many others will not be. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with Mongo on one thing: I think the arbiters are too inclined to address issues where they're involved vs. where they're not. He may think it's retaliation; I think it's a simple (though somewhat ironic) reluctance to get in the middle of other's disputes, when much of the committee seems to continue to see their role as "taking sides". Accordingly, blocks of their own are seen as well-controlled scenarios perfect for sending messages, whereas the complexities in other cases are much more visible, often so much as to overwhelm the committee. It's not so much more favorable of a view, since certainly I think it reflects a mistaken approach on whole, regardless of intentions. One effect is to make it more difficult to effectively critique or support an individual decision. Mackan79 (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's ever had trouble being able to criticize my stances without fear. We may not agree, but I've never taken it badly when people do so, even bad faith criticism is responded to by discourse. Attacking others, damaging the project - that's different. Then it's not okay and any admin should consider action if it doesn't look like it'll quickly stop. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My hats off to all Administrators. The position is a thankless one, which takes up a huge chunck of a Wikipedian's time. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• If a block is necessary, it should not be a problem to find another admin willing to place it. Asking somebody else to make a difficult block, in order to help avoid goading a productive contributor who perceives a conflict with you, is a smart move. It is not shirking one's duties to ask for help. Should such a request be necessary, I recommend making it in the open. Many times people have contacted me for administrative services via email, and I have told them to leave a note on my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 16:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • In theory, Jehochman. Excellent theory. And usually correct. Has anyone drawn up a spreadsheet and checked what percentage of admins who apply or lift blocks wind up at RFAR? Adding up actual cases, requested but not opened cases, and case clarifications, I daresay for the last year at least the blocks and unblocks applied to one particular editor are most likely to head to arbitration. Any use of the tools at all with regard to that editor is apt to be controversial, which likely discourages a large number of admins from going anywhere near the matter. Durova^Charge! 20:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

Well, the case is closed now, but I hope you will still give careful consideration to my questions here and here. My polite requests made to the committee in private got me nowhere. Somehow there's something here that doesn't smell quite right. ElinorD (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)