User talk:FT2

Current discussion summaries

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024 Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Labrador

Hi FT2. Can you please take a look at the history of the Labrador Retriever page? There seems to be a major case of "showcase my dog" going on there. I'd love for you to weigh in if you're interested. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I skip it this time? I'm trying to be on Wikibreak (and not succeeding very much right now) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

All righty then. If it gets too bad, I'll request semi-protection from the anon ips. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"choosing to trust a partner who is physically at risk"

Back in February 2006, I believe you added the following item in the Human sexual behavior:Safety and ancillary issues section: "choosing to trust a partner who is physically at risk." I started a topic on the talk page to help me understand what we mean by that, perhaps leading to a clarification. If you have a chance to contribute there and enlighten me I'd much appreciate it. Thanks, Jojalozzo (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's ages ago, it's a typo. It should probably be "a" not "at". But these days that kind of list should be sourced to something authoritative. Will leave a comment on the talk page. [1] FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Computer component price history

Putting this here, don't know if you watched your RD question. Are you meaning some little graphs like the ones at nextag.com? example--inks^T 04:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I was hoping for US prices but most IT big companies are global and so are their prices to a great extent. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Beehold

Just a heads-up that Beehold has taken steps to comply with the mentioned policies. I'm not changing my vote at this time, but you might be interested in doing so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of consent

Hi. :) Needlessly complex though it may be, I just wanted to remind that text isn't always CC-By-SA, per [2], but only if it is co-authored or produced by somebody else. If the contributor is the copyright holder, it must be co-licensed. How to succinctly express that, when people have trouble following the directions we've had,I have no idea. :/ Maybe we should add, "If you are the sole copyright holder, it must also be licensed under GFDL"? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Realistically, God knows :) I'm not a licensing specialist, I cleaned up the rest of it and left that. The whole area needs cleanup. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a pain, isn't it? When descriptions start off with "If...then..." clauses, you're going to lose a lot of your public. :) I'll see what I can come up with. The whole area does need cleanup; thanks for undertaking some of that. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

When I get off wikibreak I'll get into that whole area. I did it once before, but now it needs more. Would you be interested in working jointly on that? Licensing details and arcana could do with careful review when it's reworked. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I'd absolutely be willing to help. Just tap me when you're ready to go. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tiber Oilfield

Hello! Your submission of Tiber oilfield at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarified at DYK - thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tiber oilfield

On September 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tiber oilfield, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, you might have a few hundred or thousand of those to post -- I think just about everyone else felt it as well...... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

global blacklist: .*everett.*

Is this still necessary? (came up at Wikipedia:AN#Create page for James Everett Stanley) –xeno^talk 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• ? If I don't hear back from you, I'll have to assume that this is no longer a pressing issue and ask to have the entry removed. –xeno^talk 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • FYI has been removed. cheers, –xeno^talk 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Experienced Opinion

I wanted to draw on your expertise for a brief moment. I recently noticed a contradiction between two articles and thought you might have some ideas on where I should bring it up at. The Outline of geography#Landforms lists deserts as an example of landforms. The article Landform, however, notes: "Landforms do not include ... geographic features, such as deserts." Another user brought this up on the Geography Wikiproject a few months ago, but things are stale there. Any ideas on where I could mention this to get opinions on the matter? I don't mean to bother you -- only respond if you have the time and inclination. :) —Matheuler 03:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

afd notification

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Same-sex marriage and procreation (2nd nomination). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Coughlin

Done.

Rather inconsiderate of you...

...to have the idea for {{uninvolved}} before I did! Nevertheless, the damage is done, and I've already started a discussion at VPR you might wish to share your thoughts in. Cheers,  Skomorokh  08:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't indicate it. I'll fix that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Link added. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget

Bishonen knew that Geogre was socking while he was harassing me and was involved in conversations with her and myself while using the other name. Allowing another editor to use a sock to facilitate harassment against others is probably just as bad as what you listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I love how my at my ArbCom people call me paranoid while some of those people responding have already been proven as stooping to these levels to attack me. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely possible. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

In my original request,[3] I posted this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&oldid=317291255#Unclear. That is as transparent as it gets to show the discussion between KillerChihuahua and me. It's all there. Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bishonen blocked you once upon a time, part of the situation which eventually led to you stepping down from ArbCom. Shortly after, you created Bishonen 3: On the ArbCom Case page you accuse us of "your joint "first in the trough" in both cases" - this is nonsense. You started it at 06:30, 3 August 2009 . Jehochman made his first addition at 12:28, 3 August 2009 and 19 edits and several editors later, and appearing after Joopercoopers, Chillum, Majorly, Jack Merridew, Unitanode and Cirt, I finally found the darn thing at 18:38, 3 August 2009

You have hurt feelings, or perhaps feel insulted is better phrasing, that I did the cupcake view on Bishonen 3, as OrangeMarlin had done on Bishonen 2, and Sean Black had done on Bishonen (1). I also informed you I thought you were emphatically not the appropriate person to open such an Rfc, at one time asking if you were completely without clue. Jehochman also told you these things in different ways.

I frequently agree with other editors here. No collusion is necessary, especially when you can see us discussing whether to open an Rfc or move to ArbCom right there in the open on my talk page. I'm not in collusion with Jehochman any more than I am with Joopercoopers, Chillum, Majorly, Jack Merridew, Unitanode and Cirt, or you - all of whom were also on Bish3.

Now you have tried to draw some kind of parallel between your the current Arbcom Case and your ill-advised Rfc on Bishonen, who didn't lie, didn't assist a banned or sanctioned friend to circumvent ArbCom, didn't nominate nor support a sock of an admin who'd been forced to be de-sysopped under a cloud for adminship - in short, the only tenuous similarity is that a sock was involved in each case. The situations are completely different. The only constant is... you. Badgering, hostile to those you feel have done you wrong. First Bishonen, now myself and to a lesser extent Jehochman. Consider your actions. Consider the words "grudge" and "bias" and "vendetta" and consider your actions in light of those words. Consider dropping your persistent harassment of me. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Err. No.

Your idea of "shortly after"... that was old news in 2008 and January '09. I raised the RFC - as one of several experienced users please note - over 7 months following that. It followed a very specific incident in which Bishonen appeared to have 1/ acted improperly, and 2/ engaged in precisely the behavior you just endorsed an RFAR for, and 3/ refused to engage in the required dialog on a talk page.

If you want to claim that was somehow "retaliation" for the old block (for which she was admonished anyway) you'll have to do a heck of a lot better.

If you also want to avoid the question by claiming that somehow asking you to explain your apparent inconsistent behavior where you support one sock-abetor and condemn another, and you characterize re-asking when you don't answer (and having completely ignored it from then to now) as "persistent harassment", you'll likewise have to do a lot better.

You're also forgetting you fabricated never-substantiated claims, and ominous threats, that you never backed up last time (or indeed here). So I no longer automatically believe you when you claim someone's "harassing meee", or "persistently" doing stuff, or "attacking" your friends.

You're accountable. You're being asked to account. I have asked you one simple question. Are your views on admins concealing socking, the same now, as when you protected someone you knew 2 months ago who multiple users felt did the same? That's a reasonable question, and your avoidance and bluster in place of an answer is the only reason I've had to say anything beyond "thank you".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is no inconsistency. Name me the ArbCom ban-evading sock Bishonen knowingly nominated for admin. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Now that you've changed what I replied to[4] - accountable for what? thinking your Rfc was silly? I still do. Yep, all full of admission here. I think your Rfc was a dumb idea. I think you were the wrong person to bring it. Still do. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's gaming, KC. You know I asked about "concealing" an admin socker... because I've said so. There's a term for the tactic of changing what someone says, then asking them to back up that (untruthful/distracting) version, as a way to not answer the original. Read my actual question [5]... and actually answer it -- not some substitute question or point of your own choosing -- and we may be done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no evidence Bishonen concealed any sock which was a desysopped friend evading an ArbCom ban for harassment. In fact, I have no evidence she concealed any sock at all. Neither do you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked whether your view was as strong then as now, on desysopping admins who conceal socking. I did not ask your opinion on the case itself. Considering you openly admitted to forming and posting a view at the RFC before checking any evidence or diffs, and without giving a damn to read them, you wouldn't have been well informed to answer anyway.

The tactic you're using is one of "bluster, distract, accuse, raise straw men, then after a while claim that re-asking is harassing mee!"

We've had no real contact save for these two times when you acted in a questionable manner – and to ask why you behaved in a questionable manner. You endorsed this RFAR. You appear to have protected one user and demanded desysopping of another where identical concerns are raised. So - was your stance 2 months ago (that admins who knowingly conceal socking should be desysopped), as strongly held then as now? Yes? No? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have evidence Bishonen concealed a sock which was an admin friend using a secret account to prop up consensus, to seem "neutral" while the other attacked, and was there only for harassment. As the object of the attack in which she aided the sock in his attacks against me, she was complicit in the harassment and should have been censured for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You may indeed. I, however, have no such evidence, nor did I even know that Utgard Loki was a sock until Geogre was before Arbcom accused of misuse of that sock. I also have my doubts that 'alleged harassment' = 'proudly unrepentantly and knowingly helping an editor violate an ArbCom ban. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you don't have evidence. RFC is for uninvolved admins to assess evidence. Only you decided prior to the case that it was "ridiculous" to consider such serious concerns, then afterwards admitted you hadn't bothered to check the evidence (by multiple admins) anyway. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's a helluva accusation to make against me. What user did I supposedly protect? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "appear" means "could quite plausibly seem that way to a reviewing user". It might not be so... but right now it's a possibility and your conduct throughout was certainly very strange and not very consistent with admin standards.

That's why I asked for clarity on your stance on the basic principle involved -- whether you genuinely do feel that an admin who has concealed socking should be summarily desysopped (your strong words at RFAR). Evidence that might suggest an admin did so was presented for the community to review, which you couldn't be bothered to review before opining disparagingly.

My concern with you is you stepped in to impede that discussion. The issue/allegation raised then about someone you knew, was a matter that you now claim to feel very strongly could and should (if proven) lead to desysopping. But in that case you didn't check the evidence at all, and it seems you took actions whose effect was to prevent any productive discussion. So I ask, what do you really believe about admins who abet or knowingly conceal socking? Are your strong words at RFAR real or sincere? Confirm whether you felt so strongly about such issues 2 months ago. That's all I'm asking. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

← Sheesh. FT2 clearly believes that the Geogre situation and the Law situation were similar and should be treated similarly. KillerChihuahua believes they are dissimilar, and thus it would be silly to treat them the same way. It doesn't seem very complicated; both views are reasonable, and reasonable people can view the same situation and reach different conclusions. I don't think that trying to back KC into a corner is going to persuade anyone of anything.

Additionally, I'm a little concerned at the abridgement applied by FT2 in his questioning. Compare the following:

• KillerChihuahua's original post: "An admin who knowingly aids and abets an editor's evasion of ArbCom's decision to limit them to one account, by knowingly nominating a sock account for adminship, is also grossly guilty of violating the community's trust."
• FT2's abridgement: "An admin who knowingly aids and abets... a sock account... is also grossly guilty of violating the community's trust."

Do you see what you've done? KC's original comment highlighted the evasion of ArbCom sanctions and the nomination of a known sock for adminship as key elements of her concern here. You elided those elements and made it sound like she issued a categorical condemnation of anyone who "aids and abets a sock account" in any way. KC's full statement doesn't necessarily imply any inconsistency in her viewpoints on the two situations, but your abridgment creates what I think is an incorrect representation of her statement, which you've then leaned on as the basis of your allegations of inconsistency or double standards. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain it for you, a bit more slowly:

1. A number of admins - of which I was one, but not the first and far from the only - felt grave concern that an admin had known another admin was socking abusively, and had concealed it. Not only that, but that the admin had allowed the other to sock a debate in their favor, and had gained advantage from it and concealed the stacking, allowing repeat stacking a second time. The socking admin was their wiki-friend. The socker was later desysopped.

2. You (and I, and anyone) may differ about whether the socking was "really" socking and "really" abusive, or whether the concealing admin "should" have said anything or allowed themselves to appear to take benefit from the abuse of a wiki-friend.

3. Regardless of personal views, Arbcom determined the socking was abusive, and the concern that an admin allowed themselves to gain by concealing the socking of a wiki-friend, is a legitimate and valid concern, if some users hold that concern, even if different people will have different views.

4. Dispute resolution was followed properly. Discussion was held on the appropriate talk page, and when unsatisfactory (in multiple users' eyes) moved to RFC. Again, I was not the first to certify the RFC either.

5. Dispute resolution is sacrosanct on wiki. It's our means to work as a community. Admins more than most users know this. It is fact and evidence based. A concern is taken to RFC because those with the concern wish high quality community review and consideration, rather than bickering, and RFC is how we achieve that. Users (and admins more so) responding at RFC are under a duty or expectation to review the evidence, inform themselves of the case, speak to the evidence neutrally, and help resolution by providing high quality input.

6. The first two admins to respond on this serious, multiple-admin requested, and strongly evidenced issue, were Jehochman and KillerChihuahua. Both posted to speak in spoke in an untoward and unhelpful manner, that ultimately ensured this sensitive RFC did not to gain the review which dispute resolution is intended to give. High quality responses by them would have probably made a big difference.

7. Following the RFC the two each admitted they had done so without caring to read the evidence. Both admitted the evidence could easily be 100% correct. Jehochman made statements that showed his posts at RFC were grossly at odds with his private knowledge. KillerChuihuahua accused others (unsubstantiated) of attack, accused (unsubstantiated) policy breach (since when has seeking clarity on a possible instance of abusive adminship following correct process and with evidence presented, been improper?), gave incredibly spurious reasons, and falsely claimed there was a "vendetta". She was asked to substantiate these with evidence or diffs (which don't exist) and unsurprisingly failed, declined, or didn't care to. Their behavior was overall highly suspect in that case.

8. Two months go by. Then the exact same two admins turn up (again together) at RFAR, seeking for heads to roll, pronouncing in the very strongest terms that concealment and deception by an admin related to socking by a wiki-friend are unforgivable, how desysopping is expected, and so on.

9. Given past conduct I have grave concerns this may not be a genuine stand, but a stance based on alliances and likes/dislikes. Not "bad faith assumption" but disgust at admins who at best are grossly derilict or lacking in wiki-integrity in their roles, and at worst played both sides depending on the party and context. I was left asking:

• Where was this strong stance when it was someone they both knew who was more popular, who was felt by others to have concealed socking by an wiki friend in a serious matter?
• Why did both argue in the first case on personalities not evidence?
• Why did both admit after the RFC they had a stance before reading any evidence, and had indeed not bothered or cared to review any of the evidence before stating a view on such a serious matter in formal DR -- a striking admission from two such experienced admins.
• Why did the exact same two admins who turned up (together) to "trash" an RFC related to admin concealment of socking, then turn up (together again) to push for the strongest desysopping in a second case of admin concealment?

10. I expressed my disgust. It was the first time I have done so on-wiki in 5 years editing, and I don't ask that you agree with it. I ask that you acknowledge my disgust as my own feeling at their common/joint conduct. I paraphrased their posts at RFAR to show just how strongly they worded it, and how exactly parallel the ideas are between the two cases. They were strikingly similar.

11. The acid test of gaming vs. integrity is what one would do, and hold, not what one says. I asked each the same question -- did they feel this strongly about admin concealment of socking, 2 months ago. I didn't ask if they agreed with the evidence, or whether they would desysop, just if their views were as strong then as now, on admin concealment of socking.

12. Both evaded the core question (which was open and did not assume anything of the answer); KC followed a pattern of: evade/distract/straw man, then when re-asked claim she was being "harassed". A very disappointing response from an admin in its own right.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your issue about "final" in the second draft of the ArbCom policy

Hi FT2. Neither "final" nor "binding" fits the bill for me, since appeals (to Jimbo) are possible.

It may be best that the community take over the evolution of the second into the third draft. Otherwise, I can see this going nowhere until next year, which is unacceptable. Tony (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Appeal to Jimbo is so rare (a bit like appeal to the Queen of England, as he likes the monarchic parallel) that it can be footnoted. For all practical purposes, Arbcom is the route of final appeal.
2. Binding is the correct word: an Arbcom decision is indeed binding, in that it's obligatory for parties to follow its provisions. If the decision were overturned by Jimbo (or the Arboitrators themselves) later on, then it would cease to be "the decision in the case". While it's the decision, it's binding. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Greek user vandalising my greek wikipedia talk page

Hi there. Your admin assistance is needed here please. In the past few days I've been asking several greek translators for a translation request for a short english article in a civilized and friendly tone (e.g. here). Today, this user wrote me a reply on my greek wiki talk page, "ordering" me to "stop sending emails to every single user of this project." With "this project" he probably means the greek wikipedia. So far so good, I simply deleted his tell from my talk page. Now, this user has kept on reverting what I did on my talk page. Please check the history here. Would you please be so kind and use your admin tools to stop this vandalism on my greek talk page? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:91.108.235.143

Hi, that person is caught in a rangeblock of yours. Could you advise her about how best to proceed? Thanks,  Sandstein  20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this one. WIll review unless someone else wants to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination)

Hi, FT2. Since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but I won't be posting at it. Busy elsewhere at the moment. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. We either need to restore the history or delete the new article, since its currently represent a copyright violation in that it doesn't attribute Wikipedia's contributors. Since you deleted it as a BLP, I figured I'd better check with you. How do you want to handle it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Need for attribution" v. "removal of unacceptable revisions" is a question that's never quite been answered. It's probably due a community discussion in itself.

The current article is a substantial expansion and rewrite, but it's still based on the old version. One option is to simply undelete the old version completely, since the page was one-sided in 2008 but now is apparently not a problem (history revisions and pages starting /w/ aren't spidered). A second option is to add attribution in some other way - I'm not entirely sure how one would do that, perhaps add names to the talk page or major editors to the history, and link to it in page history? A third option is to rewrite the problem sections (but even so the unattributed copyvio will be in history?).

The bottom line is there isn't an easy answer. Full undelete may be best. Can you look at the page history, consider BLP best practices, and see what you think best? This is a known "problem area". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to list the contributors names in the article's talk. I know some contributors aren't happy with that solution, since it doesn't show who did what mod, but our ToU says, "a list of all authors"--which I can do. It won't be pretty, mind. :) Since it's acceptable and there are BLP issues in history, that might be best. I'll go ahead and do that, and if anyone objects at any point, we can consider full history restoration then. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Since you initiated the last RFC, I'd like to draw your attention to this. Regards, Majorly talk 13:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was already aware, thanks. I don't have an axe to grind in this battle; my focus is misconduct by admins not personal grudges. But there are issues, and they have not yet been resolved. So it's still open for consideration. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, FT2--- Fainites conveyed your offer to me. I don't see my way to carrying out that action right away, but I do very much appreciate your suggestion.

Best regards, Jean Mercer (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. We aim to be an encyclopedia; using the wiki as a battleground isn't ever acceptable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Rev-deleted-user

I don't think I really like this change. Yes, it adds detail on Special:Contribs, but it makes a mess of history pages... Happy‑melon 09:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue's more, that it is crucial oversighters realize that they are seeing material that is non-public. With RevDelete everything's public (although possibly greyed out), that it would be easy to slip and forget this one thing isn't. Hence the unsubtle reminder. It looks like you solved it with templates though...? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ParserFunctions to the rescue. This is something that should really be done in the software, tho. I do agree it's important to have a noticeable warning. Happy‑melon 09:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reported. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That Orange IP range

Has an abuse report been filed for range 91.108.192.0/18? Was wondering because it resolves to Orange--surely someone there needs to know about the abuse coming from their network. From the block log, it looks like it's been going on almost unabated for two years. Blueboy96 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Amended block log to a message that asks any users to contact checkusers via the functionaries' list instead; the checkusers are aware of it (and I'll see it there too if needed). I can't remember if there's been a formal communication on it though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS

I've asked to drop the CU/OS/sysop bits at Meta:RFP, due to additional real-world stuff going on.

I've also unsubscribed from the oversight and checkuser lists and removed myself from being an oversight list admin, though I'll continue editing and other project level issues.

I meant to do this a while back on a couple of occasions, but have been involved in the RevDelete rollout, interface development, bug hunting, fixing of old suppression matters, sock work, etc for ages.

I've formally confirmed to AC for the record that there isn't any other issue conflated with it nor any adverse dialog or other prompting incident elsewhere.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:SOCK

Hi FT2, you may have missed my comments on one of your edits. See here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability RfC

Hi FT2, please see my recent restoration of the consensus-supported version of WP:N. Regarding the recent discussion at WT:N, I agree with Gavin that some sort of RfC is needed in order to establish a consensus regarding the information discussed. Would you be interested in setting it up? If so, how would you like it to be framed? Also crossposted at Gavin's, Masem's and Hiding's talk pages. ThemFromSpace 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question

I don't think people should have to out themselves to run for ArbCom. I am open to, if an issue such as profession is seriously questioned, to providing evidence of same as part of the identification process that a successful candidate must go through. I think Jimbo would be hard on a ArbCom candidate who made false claims to be elected. I thank you for the offer of email, but right now I'm trying to keep everything I do on the record and am not emailing other editors if I can possibly avoid it! Interesting conversation yuo had with Jehochman btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I had in mind a more general question. If you like, consider the larger questions - should any user claim credentials as backing any role, without providing a way to verify them, and, is Wikipedia now of a size that claims made at senior level should be verified/verifiable?

As I said, the question wasn't a pointed one, nor asking people to out themselves. We allow editors to edit pseudonymously, and to stand for any role on the 'pedia. But if a user says "I am an X in real life" and thats stated in a way that enhances standing for a role... we may remember a certain user once claimed a PhD in theology - and look what drama we had from that. The question's because I have an interest in your view, as someone who actually has stated a real world attribute in their statement. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is your view on the topic, as a pseudonymous editor who listed a "VP level" professional position, real-life experience "working with secure, sensitive information", and real-life mentoring experience as qualifications when you stood for ArbCom? MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be verified. Not necessarily made public, but yes, there should be someone who will verify credentials claimed by Arbcom/CU/OS/Steward/Board candidates, if significant. Being unwilling to verify claims is fine, but a user should then make that clear at election. I'm not a hardliner on it, but I think we need to move that way at some point. (Why?)

For myself, I offered mine in full to WMF at the time of the election, and some months later took the originals with me when I finally met Jimbo. The business/professional ones anyway (mentoring tends to be less well evidenced unless you do it for a living). He also saw my passport and driver license in original too, confirming the identification, and that the name matched the person. Point of principle. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Slow response

I'm doing lots of traveling the next few days so I may have limited internet access. Please be patient up to a day or two if something needs attention, and consider emailing me as well. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications

We've been having an extended off wiki discussion about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 and about the election pages. I'd like to summarize a few thoughts.

1. I consider us to be friends, and I've supported you against long odds.[6] The Wikipedia community does not fully appreciate the values you bring to the table. I wish that your critics would be more tolerant of different personal styles, and give you credit for the good work you do.
2. In the recent past I've had concerns about your good faith. Upon discussion and investigation my concerns are resolved, and I have retracted any such claims.
3. At the above RFC, I posted a view that was not proper. I now recognize that my remarks placed you in a bad light, and prevented you from having your concerns addressed by the community. I feel strongly that legitimate concerns should be heard, but in that RFC I undermined your legitimate concerns and imputed poor motives, rather than helping resolve them.
4. You've told me several times in the past, and I accepted, that you are not a grudge monger. I regret suggesting that you were a grudge monger.
5. My private statements to you did not accord with my public statements. In private I suggested that your concerns might be 100% correct. In public, I took an excessively hardline approach that marginalized and disparaged the legitimate concerns of yourself and other users.
6. I believe the concerns you expressed in the RFC should be addressed on the merits and on the basis of the evidence. Other parties may have drawn an incorrect conclusion that I'd evaluated and rejected the evidence. In fact, I did not consider the evidence at all.
7. I have retracted any negative claims I made about you on the ACE2009 pages.

I am sorry for the inconvenience resulting from these matters and hope these clarifications help set the record straight. Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick note between coffees (in case anyone wonders). It wasn't easy, but we have had productive discussion. I'll say more in a bit, but for now the private dialog is still ongoing and coffee is awaiting. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#FT2-Jehochman and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your user rights

According to Special:ListUsers you are edit filter manager, autoreviewer and IP block exempt, but nothing else. On the other hand, your latest entry in Special:Log/rights says "FT2 changed rights for User:FT2 from Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters and Administrators to Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators, IP block exemptions, Confirmed users and Autoreviewers ‎ (due to pending request)". Are you aware of any MediaWiki bug or feature that prevents your admin, checkuser and oversighter rights from being displayed in Special:ListUsers? Hans Adler 18:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe "due to pending request" means that FT2 requested his other ops to be removed at Meta. The situation appears to be copacetic. Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, thanks for the new word. Yes your response makes sense. Apparently user rights changes aren't logged if they come from outside this wiki.

FT2, unfortunately I neglected to do even the most basic research surrounding the date of the last change – sorry for bothering you about this. I was seriously concerned when it occurred to me today that you might still have these rights, but of course I am glad you have done the right thing. Hans Adler 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The post you're looking for is a few sections above (#CU/OS). There's no right or wrong to it; it's an action anyone can take who feels encumbered by the bits or doesn't feel they need them for a while. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that you did not give up these rights under a cloud? Hans Adler 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

10 points. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. I would have preferred 0 points. I see a lot of work ahead. Hans Adler 13:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Calm down

You'll notice I was careful not to accuse you or anybody else of anything in my initial post. My post was factual and calm. Hopefully yours will be too. You wanted an RfC. I prefer to keep my private materials private, and thus requested ArbCom review instead. This is quite normal and proper. Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The case you requested will be reviewed by Arbcom, who will in due course (if accepted) ask for formal evidence and base their decision upon that evidence alone -- which will either be on-wiki, or CCed to you if not. I think the statement is well substantiated and covers the concerns, and will stand the test of their inspection. If not, they will know what to say. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The main difference between this process and what you requested is that there's a mechanism for handling private evidence. I'd appreciate if you removed the references to what was discussed in mediation. Both sets of mediators have supported the confidentiality of those processes. Furthermore, for the good of Wikipedia we want people to try mediation, and to feel comfortable speaking openly when they do. I'm afraid your actions have set back those larger goals, but it is never too late to do the right thing. I'm keen to get feedback from clueful, uninvolved parties. Hopefully this will soon end and we can both get back to writing articles. Blame is the most worthless of all commodities. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I explained Lar's role and nature of dialog on the case page (the chair of MedCom has confirmed the site norms; the kind of privileged mediation to which you are referring is not applicable).
2. Admin misconduct of this kind is, as I explained at both dialogs, not suitable for mediation. It needs communal eyeballs of some kind for any decision.
3. I explicitly stated that in the dialog with Lar, privacy of chat was not an option (beyond the minimum required by site norms) as it had been gamed before.
4. I haven't quoted you. I have summarized and characterized emails. Legitimate and (as you know) normal. In this case they are highly relevant because they directly evidence the gravity of the issue.

The item you are asking to be removed is strong evidence of a further serious concern. Perhaps if it were not, and perhaps if you had not made gaming private/public material a centerpiece of all these issues I would be more sympathetic to removing this or that. However given you did (and are as best I can see, continue to try and do so), I am not prepared to have more of this case in private, than is necessary. There's been too much gaming privacy already. Daylight sterilizes, and these matters need daylight. You knew my view to that effect from the start. It's not news in any way shape or form.

If the characterization of any matter is factually inaccurate, you may say so, on the page you yourself chose to open.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Request that you share the Jehochman logs

Cf User talk:AGK#please set the record straight. Will you please share the logs in question? Much drama would be avoided if you did so. AGK 00:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response at A/R. That private communication is pertinent to the dispute is indeed a justification for deferring a case to arbitration. But the consent of the e-mail discussion participants to have the threads disclosed would make arbitration avoidable. And even if they participants declined to consent, there remains the issue that a simple agreement by all involved to stop bickering, go away, and do something else could resolve this dispute far easier than could a committee investigation. I avoid clichés as a rule, but here it really would be accurate to say that this is the making of a mountain out of a molehill. AGK 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(Just realised that my second comment is probably relevant to the A/R thread, so I've pasted it into my statement.) AGK 01:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See post on your talk page. Hope this helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, FT2. I just received from you more complete, but not 100% complete, logs. Depending on how things go we'll see what else might be needed. Hopefully the issue will soon be moot. Jehochman ^Talk 01:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

They say "If you need the irrelevant chat that took place here, let me know". When you let me know, they'll be sent. The gaming is getting predictable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I still would like the full, unedited, uncorrected, uncommented, unredacted logs. Thank you. Are you still interested in pursuing this dispute, or would you like to shake hands and drop it, as several ArbCom members have suggested would be the best course of action? As I said in the logs, "Jehochman is a peace loving guy". It would be far better for both of us to go do something worthwhile, like fixing an article, instead of killing megabytes of disk space and hours of volunteer time. We can simply erase the unproductive vitriol and do something better. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken

This [7] is mistaken. The dispute started in early August. That's when I took the action you disputed. You've now had most August, all of September, all of October and most of November to get my actions looked at. Jehochman ^Talk 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You aren't aware of everything though (nor would you expect to be). Overall I'm going to leave it stand. I could add more explanation of timing, but I don't have the detailed information here to do so precisely. If it does need correction I'll do so at that time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Scapegoat

Regarding this post:

It's fine if you want to paint me as the scapegoat here, though you'll have to bear in mind that your words toward me have a value directly proportional to the value I (and the community) places in them.

That said, let's be clear about a few things:

• I never made incendiary tweets or blog posts;
• I didn't rush to put out an inflammatory statement and remove user rights from someone under obviously political and false pretenses;
• I didn't use back-room tactics on a private mailing list using my access that only comes from my job (but acting clearly outside of my job) to cajole on-wiki action;
• I didn't misuse oversight (or RevisionDelete, if you prefer) to try to hide a massive screw-up;
• I didn't use oversight in a massive and public manner without first writing out a justification for doing so and posting it (by the way, there's still no statement from the Arbitration Committee regarding any of this);
• I didn't ask John to resign or say anywhere that I supported his resignation.

I did start a centralized discussion (on-wiki) about what had happened. As someone who was used a unfairly as a scapegoat previously (in my opinion, at least), I would think these types of tactics would be above you. But, sure, blame me for the actions of others. Clearly this whole affair lies on my shoulders. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't make incendiary tweets and blog posts, and you didn't use a mailing list. You did forget to mention the many incendiary IRC posts where, knowing almost nothing, you flamed Arbcom and called for bits to be removed, and the repeated bad faith on-wiki [8][9]. Then, when someone did as you advocated and resigned, you posted "I agree with everything Thatcher said" [10]. Thatcher never advocated those things.

I haven't blamed you (or if so, as one clear example from many), I asked you one serious question for you to reflect upon. You called repeatedly in multiple venues for pitchforks and for bits to be removed. A resignation resulted. Are you happy to get a resignation from the drama you helped stir? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I happy that John Vandenberg resigned? No. I'm of the view that this was a largely a collective screw-up, though there seem to be particular actors who are more at fault than others.

Regarding my agreement with Thatcher, I was echoing his view that offering up a resignation in cases like this serves nothing and nobody. I was also echoing his view that there was a collective screw-up here, not the sole fault of John. You seem to want to try to make this out as me "going after" or "attacking" John, when that's undeniably and unequivocally false. Out of all of the people on the Arbitration Committee this year, he is one of the people I trust and respect the most. So I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to make it seem as though his resignation was my doing. It had very little (if anything) to do with me.

I don't know where or how you get off presuming to know what I know. Quite simply, you have no idea the level to which I'm informed, and had I posted everything I knew last night on-wiki, you might have a legitimate reason to be upset right now. But I didn't. Instead, I walked away when it become more than clear that my involvement wasn't aiding anything and that I was having difficulty contributing productively (the gap in my edits makes this more than clear).

I stand by what I said last night both on-wiki and off. This entire affair, but particularly the massive use of RevisionDelete, was unfathomably stupid, only compounded by the major lack of communication between the Arbitration Committee and the community (where's that statement from them again?). I said it last night privately, though I'll repeat it again publicly here that I believe that the use of RevisionDelete here was grossly inappropriate and if I were in the position to do so, I would have either restored the revisions myself or removed the rights from the person who did, or both. The continued lack of a clear explanation of how and why this was appropriate (and how it complied with the global Oversight policy) speaks volumes. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't know what's up, but you were sure it was improper usage, and sure that bits should be removed. You like John but you were willing to call indiscriminately for Arbcom heads and didn't seem to connect you might get what you called for. You rabble-rouse, you might get what you didn't intend. You are as responsible for John's resignation as anyone who called for heads to roll.

You don't like what you got? Then don't do it.

Result, zero project benefit, net project loss. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

tweaktweaktweaktweaktweak

Stop it. It's getting disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. Wordsmithing is a long term "known" weakness of mine, and I seem to spot stuff afterwards, despite preview. It's still preferable (I think) to accidentally leaving a word that would possibly not help good discussion. That said, I agree it's undesirable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfectionism vs human fallibility. A grammarian's hell. :) I've once edit conflicted 5 times against the same person changing their work. I decided to just click new section and avoid it all together. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If a source is reliable, does that mean it is also independent?

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability regarding independent sourcing. Whilst I disagree with your proposed changes to WP:N, I agree with the reasons behind your proposal. I have always found it strange why WP:V does not address the issue of independence head on, and your views on this issue may be relevant to the discussion if you would care to contribute. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added an example to the discussion and see others have done so too. If more's needed, let me know? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

When I read Wikipedia talk:Mentorship, I noticed your comments; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

clerkish request re new rfar

Could you move the majority of "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" under your own statement, or cut it down to size. That section is for links to publicly available background reading to confirm that dispute resolution has been attempted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've always figured that section as being the evidence that every reasonable other step has been taken ("last resort") or why acceptance is appropriate even if they haven't. Usually RFC is one such step. I'm fine removing a chunk of that section, just a bit wary it will remove from the committee some key part of an explanation why RFC won't fly and why acceptance would be appropriate anyhow. Over to you for comment? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is part of the header. it shouldn't contain opinion and the accusations. e.g. you mention "leading to more deception and smearing, and further gaming of privacy". Also you mention an "RFC" that I can't find.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Got you. Okay, that makes sense. I'll fix that, thanks. As for the RFC, I have that from Jehochman himself. Editing, then heading off. Happy festiveness :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, your statement is already 633 words. The chunk in the header is an extra 363 words. Combined that is 996 words. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Way ahead on this - I had checked this issue some months ago (AC/C/N thread). The 500 word limit applies to the evidence section (or "statement by initiator") only. The "other steps" section is a bit longer than usual but it lists only what it must: Steps taken (terse bullets); why RFC is inaccessible (essential); and why RFC might not be appropriate even if accessible (terse bullets). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Way ahead? You're forgetting that I was on Arbcom at the time. Risker said:

If, however, there is a situation where other methods of dispute resolution were not taken, a *very* brief comment (1-2 sentences) in the section for the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" may be appropriate, if this is not covered in the statement itself.

I have culled it down to links, without descriptions. If you want to explain why an RFC was not initiated, please do so briefly.

Your statement is still at 633 words. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Edited [11]:   1/ A couple of edits to the links; 2/ added back (in the same brief style you used) a couple of omitted prior attempts; and 3/ explained in a much briefer way about RFC. If this isn't okay can you let me know here first? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Update - Thanks for the redaction. Forgot to say that. But if you can figure a better way to explain that users couldn't have easily got involved or helped fix it even if they'd wanted to, due to the degree of misinformation being posted, I'd appreciate the hand. Also if "venue selection" (the last sentence) needs moving to the main statement (eg above "applicable norms"), that's fine too; for now I've put it with the other "RFC as a venue" comment. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As you have restored most of what I have removed, I'll go through it line by line.

• "Uninvolved opinion sought (Alison) and second uninvolved opinion (Lar)"

  this is not worth the bullet point; either Alison has seen the evidence, and could certify an RFC, or she hasn't seen it. Either way, it is all off wiki, and isn't evidence of an attempt to resolve the dispute. Alison and Lar gave their input in the last RFAR, and can give statements again in this RFAR.

• "Email discussion, broken abruptly by Jehochman on the verge of conclusion (off-wiki)"

  is this not part of the mediation? off-wiki emails are not part of our dispute resolution mechanisms.

• "on-wiki dialog contains much deception and bad faith (see evidence)"

  that isnt a valid reason for not filing an RFC. (actually, it seems like a good reason to file an RFC.

• "almost no users were ever in a position"

  almost?? Who is in a position to become informed and try to resolve the issue?

• "Because of the scale of deliberate deception and abuse by an admin evidenced in this case (including gaming across two elections, two RFCs already and two RFARs), the Committee is asked to accept the case rather than refer it elsewhere."

  this is not suitable material for that section. It is your appeal, and belongs in your statement.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Quick answers:

1. Alison would not be seen to have standing to certify an RFC. She has not "tried and failed" to resolve the dispute; she's merely made a public statement what a set of private logs show.
2. That said, seeking an uninvolved user to give uninvolved input is one well-recognized dispute resolution method, identical in principle to venues like WP:3O or asking an admin to help. Shows effort to resolve a matter.
3. It was not part of a mediation. It was a private dialog. Lar was in the loop only because I asked him to review evidence; he then had questions and then stayed around as a witness/facilitator if needed. He didn't say so much. its main value was keeping the chat "straight" and prevented gaming by being there.
4. I think engaging in email dialog to resolve an issue is dispute resolution, as much as posting on talk pages would be; it's a step that shows a user has made efforts to resolve a dispute.
5. Agree that a case that few know much about, with deception/misinformation/bad faith claims as a substantial part of the posted dialog, is not a reason to avoid a process. But that's not what I was saying. It's a very good reason why users would not be able to engage even if they wished to, and hence why there isn't likely to exist a user who can say "I also tried to resolve the dispute and failed". It's evidencing why a genuine qualified certifier is unlikely to exist.
6. The people who can become involved and try to resolve the issue are those who 1/ are aware of the case sufficiently to understand what's smoke and what isn't, 2/ willing and desirous to be badly smeared, attacked and stressed, and engage Jehochman on these issues. A quick eyeball review of relevant wiki pages says there haven't been other users checking those boxes in this case.
7. It's okay to put it in the main statement? As you can see it's stable, I haven't been editing it except normal short responses.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alison may not be able to certify the RFC yet, but that does not mean that she is unable to do so. The requirement to have more than one person certify it is so that multiple people attempt to resolve the dispute. She could try. She may not, due to apathy or a host of other reasons. But if you are the only person who wants to pursue this now, that says a lot.

Off wiki attempts do not show an effort to resolve the matter. We see nothing. We can't see whether it was good faith attempts to resolve the issue, or badgering, or .., or .., or! It is useful to attempt to work things out off-wiki, but if that fails, it must be attempted on-wiki.

I don't much care what you put in your statement, or how and when you change it; it is up to you and the clerks what you do with the statement under your name.

I do care about the non-neutral aspects of the header. If you don't fix it, I will (again).

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A holiday salute ...

... in passing from one disreputable to another. I say that with a smile because I see many reputable names on this talk page who have taken umbrage with some of your points or your (rhetorical) style.

I cannot say whether — in the balance — the summation of your actions are a net positive for the universe or not :-) ... but I do see profound evidence of focusing your attention in difficult corners without flinching (whether the flinching mechanism should have been disabled, or not. :-)

"Politically" it is probably not a good thing to be saluting in such circumstances — but since it's Christmas Eve, I think I'll risk it. Happy holidays and best wishes for a beautifully interesting 2010. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes

I have known you for a while from a distance, being of course an ARBCOM member and one with a high regard in the community. It is with that I wish you and your family the best wishes for the upcoming year and may your contributions continue in an effort to make the encyclopedia better. Cheers U8701 (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your talk archives

The link to your talk page archives at the top of this page is a redlink. Clicking on it reveals that the archive was speedily deleted by you. Speedy deletion should not be used for use talk pages - if deletion is desired then they should be nominated at MfD, and they should only be deleted in exceptional circumstances. Could you find an admin and ask them to undelete User talk:FT2/Archive please? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the history. The archive page was just that, an archive. This talk page has not been deleted and its history goes back to 2004, as you can see for yourself. There is no obligation to retain old postings in an archive. Many editors simply delete them instead of archiving.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Will, in that case could FT2 please remove the misleading link from the top of this page? DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the link there generally. But as I'm not using it commenting out is fine. So sure :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: I have just witnessed a small miracle: Ask/Clarification/Given. Without RfC or resort to Arbcom. :-) Happy New Year, all. It's going to be miraculous year — trust me. LoL Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

End of Time Analysis

I reckon Edokter reverted it because it was unsourced, not because he's opposed to its inclusion on principle. For example, see The Stolen Earth and Turn Left (Doctor Who) for example with sourced analysis. He's one of the best editors in the WikiProject, so I think he gets the real-world perspective. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Slut

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Slut. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Zoosadism questionnaire.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zoosadism questionnaire.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity

I am not sure how you view the results of the RFC which ran at WT:N, but it seems to me that support and opposition to the proposal was fairly even. I oppose the proposal myself on the grounds that it is instruction creep in the way that it adds an extra layer of complexity to the guideline. My view is that WP:N should be kept as short and sharp as possible, as long and verbose guidelines tend to invite endless amendments which have little or no substance.

In my view the issue is much more simple: promotion and publicity are simply examples of coverage that is trivial, or put another way, they do not constitute "significant coverage" in accordance with WP:GNG. It seems to me if I can say this in one sentence, then we hardly need an entire new section to say the same thing.

The problem, as I see it, is that WP:GNG already provides guidance on what constitutes significant coverage, by disallowing promotional content as evidence of notability. Where I feel you proposal adds unnecessary complexity is that it fails to make it explicit that promotion and publicity are related to what does or does not constitute significant coverage.

A similar issue seems to be plaguing the section "Notability is not temporary". The ideas underpinning this section have been brought into question several times in recent months, and it occurs to me that it boils down to the same issue, namely that this sections does not make it explicit that routine news reports do not constitute "signficant coverage".

If you were to reconsider your proposal, say by combining it with WP:NTEMP or merging it into a new section which addresses the issue of "signficant coverage" directy, then I would throw my support behind you. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me FT2, You're My Only Hope!

Hi FT2, I've noticed you were one of the admins back in the day a badly written article on Anthony Chidiac was here, and you closed for good reason (brightline). I've noticed a "gang" of three (or likely one with two socks) is going around doing a fair whack of razing articles here, and was wondering if you could use your magical powers to investigate. Process as i see it is as follows: Floating IP from [Internode - Melbourne] asks to initiate an AfD on [article], within a minute or two, same admin initiates AfD, and then minutes later same registered users vote to delete. Its rather strange and oddly collusional dont you think? Anyway theres well over 50 articles razed in this manner. Could you please investigate? Surely, its ok to initiate an AfD in a fair and proper manner (like maybe discussing the issues in the discussion page (ensuring some credible identity is established), then if the discussion is not resolved, then an admin initiates a process: as a last resort, an aFd). I think the bunch of articles razed by this group or bunch of socks is raping wikipedia of useful information and references, and at the end of the day, my time, research, effort and skills of trying to be a useful editor in this reference of references is - a complete waste of time. Please help out. Already the Anthony Chidiac stub that was maintained, carefully expanded and well referenced for two years is now dust, now its an Aussie Music TV Show on the chopping block, next..well if you look back at this group of floating IPs you will find many many more, and from the same group of single purpose peoples/person. Its also interesting that this set of floating IP's from INTERNODE-MELBOURNE seem to be able to DELETE the trail of edits/history made on something as well. I find that part of concern and I know you would too. Thanks for your help if you can, I have no idea how I can get someone senior onto this serious issue and abuse of a process. --Cafejunkie (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Which IP and users? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note as the person who closed the first Afd that CafeJunkie is referring to, there are lots of socks on both sides of the fence here. Sock filled Afd, perhaps another beginning, old investigation where you pressed the go away button - all of these accountts dedicated to articles regarding a single person (Mr Chidiac as referred to above). I am forming the opinion that they may only be two people here; one pro and one con. The heading above is a hoot.....would the hairstyle suit you ? - Peripitus (Talk) 23:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both, for the note.

I have investigated and blocked Cafejunkie and socks as a reincarnation of the Achidiac sock ring. Cafejunkie - please get the idea that Wikipedia is not for messing round trying to get promotion. It's not going to happen. Peripitus, Kim - thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Incivility block text

Looking good FT2! I've added some proposed verbiage myself... what do you think? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Section name

I've actually sent a number of messages pointing folks to that thread with the new name... and I thought it more descriptive as we are trying to really fix up the text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Achidiac socking

Well done. I suspected that these were all socks of the same editor, but was too lazy to start a SPI (especially as the socking was so blatant that their comments and votes were obviously going to be ignored by the admin who closed the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship WP:CDA

I appreciate you making those tables, and getting involved half way up such a long page. I'm happy with ranges or a fixed figure, it's all general after all. I was happy originally to just leave it up to the crat's, but it does seem that people want to see a threshold, and it makes psychological sense I think.

Your comment on Bureaucrats wanting to see a hard figure is noted (I thought they might appreciate a flexible range, seeing as it is flexible anyway). Does 85% seem a reasonable figure to you, or do strongly feel there needs to be more debate? One issue (problem really, imo) is that many, if not most people associated with CDA are just eager for it to roll now.

Did you read the alternative ratio idea, ie using 5:1 instead of 85%? 5:1 is 83.3%, which is a touch low given the poll results I feel (6:1 would be around 85%, and 9:1 at 90% might be more representative yet). The baseline would be 2:1, ie 66%. What do you think? It has two supporters and it's only been me who argued against it, but if it got significant support I'd probably just accept it and let my concerns go. I do think people will want to see percentages, and ratios could be criticised at the final RfC (I'm trying to help reduce that as much as I can). Two of the three people discussing it are influential to some degree in finalising the proposal (Tryptofish and myself), which is why it's a bit of a sticking-point at the moment.

One thing I suppose is that many of the vote totals would not convert to exact percentages, which could be an argument for using a range. Just being out by 1% is easier to disallow if it is 1% away from a range. But then it's a 'rule of thumb' thing anyway, and if the crats will want preciseness, then using a single figure could save them time perhaps. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As a ratio is the same thing as a percentage (just expressed differently) it doesn't make much practical difference in the process. But for evaluation percentages seem easier, really. ("If the responses are 17:4 or more then desysop will be automatic"?) Percentages are universally understood. As for a specific figure that has to be a community decision. I'd rather see 80 or 90% but I could live with 85%.

Bear in mind the crats are evaluating consensus. They need guidance on the minimum level ("how strong a consensus we want to see"), and beyond that how much stronger the apparent raw percentage can be before there's really not much question about it and no "judgment" needed. A wide range between the two numbers says we ourselves aren't sure how strong a consensus should be needed. If we aren't sure, how can the crat involved decide if our view on "strong enough consensus" was reached? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good point on not using a range. I'm glad you agree on the ratio, hopefully we will just focus on the percentage. I really feel the baseline threshold has to represent a strong consensus (I made the poll because of consensus), but I don't know how to facilitate that now, and of the results we have are split (with a small but over-played ambiguity I think). I would personally be happy to settle on 90% from my own reading of the poll results. I would be just a little uncomfortable with 85%, but it is certainly more of a realistic compromise given the people actually contributing to CDA (often a different 'consensus' to the actual polls of course). I think they mainly favour 80%,and were willing to go with 70% it before the poll.

There is pressure from all sides not to poll again - maybe fair enough, but polls only ever bother me when people abuse the 'results'. I suppose I could question the same people I contacted when canvassing the poll, although I suppose that the people who respond could polarise around what they want. Although I don't find the result range ambiguous myself - others clearly do. Perhaps there is a neutral place we could take your raw analysis to, and see what they say? If you post it on Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/Pre_RfC_Summaries I could link to it. The draft page has fattened (and flattened) out again (mostly with 'current' debate) and I'm thinking about how to advance. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading my above comment I seemed to have misunderstood you, and then confused the baseline and threshold - must have been tired. I take it by the range you meant the full baseline to threshold consensus margin. In the revision to the original CDA proposal it was short (70%-80%), but it seems from looking at all the different views that it has to be at least a 20% margin, otherwise various people see it as either too high at one end, and too low at the other. I've decided to send querying messages to all the 'none' voters (clearly my job for allowing the ambiguity), which should hopefully be conclusive. I suspect that 65% to 85% will be the compromise figures we have to use, and that a 'compromise consensus' (likely not to upset too much either 'party') is the best we can do. I'd be uncomfortable with using a small talk page consensus that contradicts such a well attended poll, but it seems like any group of people will show different feelings on this, and we sticking with 80% at the moment simply because it was the existing edit. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Move

I have moved FT2/Social agreement to User:FT2/Social agreement. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh you have to be kidding me. Did I?

Senility. That's the only possible reason. Thank you :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight

Would it be all right to change the background color on the phrases "Monitored 24/7" and "Fast if an oversighter is around and available" on this page? With the current color scheme, those phrases are basically illegible to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Al-Durrah

Hi FT, the al-Durrah refs have to be consistent with the rest of the system, and there shouldn't be multiple tags after a sentence like that, esp not in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The refs in the rest of the article are incorrect; I've changed a few but the rest need changing. Citing as "Fallows 2007" implies an academic book or paper. In fact it's a routine news media quotation (an Israeli press spokesperson quoted on the BBC) and Fallows is the journalist. This should be in a {{cite news}} template, and if it's inconsistent then it is the other cites in the article that need to be fixed, to match current standards on citation.
2. Agree with you there should not be multiple tags. The editors on the article should decide which (one or 2) cites are most needed. But stacking 5 cites into one footnote is not an appropriate way to bypass this. There were 5 cites before; there are 5 now. if that's too many (which it is) then the original was in error and needs trimming down.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fallows 2007 is just a short ref, perfectly standard for any author plus date, no need for it to be academic. And templates are not required or even encouraged. The article's been through the FA process, FT, and that's all been checked. The key thing now is that it needs to stay consistent. It's also fine to provide more than one reference. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed you'd added templates; I just saw the multiple ref tags. Templates should never be added to an article that has a stable ref system without consensus; see WP:CITE, which says, "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. The original citation style itself isn't okay though. WP:CITE also says: "A full citation is also required in a References section at the end of the article... There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent".

Changing between acceptable styles (eg US/UK English or proper cite formats) is a matter of consensus. But changing a cite from a basic link to a proper citation is complying with WP:CITE and informs the user of the significance of the source. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There are full citations in the References section, and short refs in the text and Notes section. That's a perfectly standard way of doing things, especially with featured articles. It's one of the citations systems CITE recommends. There's no good reason at all to change it, and adding templates to an article with as many references as this would make the text uneditable, and the page very slow to load. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see now what the confusion is. Perhaps you didn't see the References section. The full citations are there. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that helps. I still think it's a poor way to do it. The average user, having clicked on a citation and ended up at item 53 in a list of "references", is not going to know to look in a separate section below that for details. In most articles the cites are self contained. Additional sources may have their own section, but a citation is self-contained in most articles precisely so that a reader gets clear information when they click a cite in the text. If it's a norm to do it that way, I'm thinking perhaps it shouldn't be. Can you point me to other FA's/contributors using that style to quote routine news media, or pointers to MOS pages? Something showing if it's a widespread usage? And thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zoo Code

The article Zoo Code has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable early Internet trivia, only of interest to an obscure subculture; no references to reliable sources, and it is unlikely that any exist.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robofish (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Psychonaut

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Psychonaut. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychonaut (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Link suggestions for User:FT2/Arbcom the punchball

I recently wrote this page as an essay, information page, heads up, or warning (depending how it's used).

There are some widespread misconceptions about the reality of the role. Explanations usually don't really convey much of what to expect to candidates, and may leave the community with unsatisfactory vague pointers: - a high level of non-public workload (but what?), high burnout rate (but why?), etc. It seems only people who have served on AC can really explain its actual internal workings and de facto role, to the community.

However having written it I'm not sure where to link it from, if anywhere, other than noting it for WP:ACE2010.

Any ideas welcomed at the talk page. And of course comments too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant/redundant

That section you've put a note in about noindex tags [12] is about user talk pages only. Since user talk page is already not indexed, it is irrelevant/redundant. –xeno^talk 21:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That would matter if we were discussing user talk pages. But user pages and their subpages are presently indexed. That's what it applies to. Not sure how the non-indexing of UTalk-space (Namespace 3) makes redundant a point related to U-space (Namespace 2)? If we're misunderstanding each other then let me know. I've commented at the talk page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think we may be arguing at cross-purposes - I'm abandoning our argument that it cannot be removed from user pages without discussion/consensus as 'academic' at this point.

What I'm saying is that the section "Wikipedia:UP#Removal of comments, warnings" is directed only at user talk pages - which are not indexed anyway - so demanding in that section that users don't remove noindex tags from their user talk page is unnecessary - since there is no need to place noindex tags there in the first place. Savvy? –xeno^talk 21:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I think I see the problem. The page is on "user pages". The section is on "Ownership and editing of pages in the user space". The tags it describes include sockpuppetry tags which appear on user pages as well as user talk pages.

I think the problem might be the sentence "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages". Obviously it's not trying to say "sock tags can be removed from user pages but not from user talk pages"(!)

This should probably read "...from their own user and user talk pages", as there are long-established tags such as sock and ban tags which can appear on either. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the subsection is entitled "Removal of comments, warnings" and addresses talk pages and is the incoming target for WP:BLANKING - expanding it to cover user pages would not be ideal. Perhaps that bit would be best served in the section immediately below, WP:UP#Removal of inappropriate content? –xeno^talk 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, and agreeing. Will take a look at the page more broadly in a bit, but yes, there's a fair point that the section is speaking both about user talk pages but then includes (and is titled to suggest) it also covers the few templates that shouldn't be removed from user pages. Fixable :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Zoo Code

I have nominated Zoo Code, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoo Code. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Enric Naval (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Saw this note above as a PROD. Under current norms it's one of many online *-codes (similar to geek code, bear code, furry code, this code and that code); a general article on such codes is more encyclopedic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

User:IBen/TB mono (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A note

FT2, thank you for your remark on the NPOV noticeboard[13]. I clicked through to your page and found the notes there insightful too; certainly valuable for my evolving understanding of what Wikipedia is and what is expected of members. I will probably be quoting some of those ideas in other contexts later, they seem to encapsulate many things. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I also have a question. Am I allowed to copy some of the text on your user space, and from the NPOV Board response, give it a different format, and place it on my user landing page? I think it is a good orientation to some key points to remember, for myself and whoever else should chance upon it. Appropriate credit would be given. Please advise. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a wiki. All text in it is free for reuse under the usual site norms, not least elsewhere in the wiki. That's fine. I've found for myself that a diff link works well if you want to do that; it shows in situ where it came from. I'm glad it helped. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

View RevDel

Quoted from bugzilla:21165

On your second point, apologies, you're mistaken. Admins have had view-only access to RevisionDelete for many months now (when not in Suppression mode for Oversight purposes). Admins can and do have access to scrutinize all non-oversight use of RevisionDelete as they wish. They have had this for a very long time.

How? –xeno^talk 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I figured it out... unhide=1... Thanks... I doubt many of us know how to do this! –xeno^talk 16:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't need to figure it out. It should be working transparently. When you visit an edit or diff that's admin RevDeleted (rather than suppressed) you should either be shown the data struck out (username etc) or get a prompt that says "as an admin you can view this [here]". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see the prompt (now)... But never noticed it before, tbh. Never even realized the "prev" link was clickable. Guess I just glossed over that. Anyways, thanks for setting me straight. –xeno^talk 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Morituri te salutant

Looks good - I remember seeing it as "morituri te salutamus" but I guess that was a Latin translation of the Greek (maybe it's in Wheelock or something). Akhilleus' explanation of the Greek looks fine to me. I would still suggest asking Haploidavey, since he is the resident expert on gladiators. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Nice work editing Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant Work permit (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Impressive, getting Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant from this, in a couple of days no less.--Work permit (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I especially like your sourcing that the well-known expression Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant was probably never a gladiators' salute, but a plea for mercy by men condemned to execution by acting out a naval battle. I worked on the Roman salute article. I found the salute is a well known symbol of fascism that is commonly perceived to be based on a custom in ancient Rome. However, no Roman text gives this description and the Roman works of art that display salutational gestures bear little resemblance to the modern salute.--Work permit (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm... this is really just a courtesy response, as I've nothing much to add at the talk-page. The main body of text presents its sources clearly and in chronological order. You might reconsider the structure of the lede: PS: by which I mean its rewriting to reflect the sequence given in the article (and btw, survivors don't have to be "remaining", but that's a very minor quibble). Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The foregoing seems a bit stingy; you've done a fine job. The lede just needs a little refining, IMHO. That's from one non-specialist, non-classicist, non-Latinist to another - and if you've a taste for the subject area, there's plenty more to be done, especially in Roman religion and society. Haploidavey (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, FT2. You have new messages at Work permit's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hmgrrrr. User:Yomangan has caught us. Do we stick to the line that Suetonius is a reliable secondary source? Or do we try to hammer an "according to" into the hook? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Still comfortable as is. The mainstream view and view of historian authorities seems to be that Suetonius is broadly a reliable source for the lives he describes, and that mainstream sources do not treat this described incident as "something Suetonius made up in school one day" (so to speak). Modern historians note there was something of a negative view of Claudius after his life, but they do not say it went to the extent of actually doubting Suetonius as a source. A degree of question is normal in a historical context, but there's a difference between that and outright skepticism by historians writing on it. I'm not seeing the latter as a common secondary source view on this incident. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Psychonautics

Hello! Your submission of Psychonautics at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! cmadler (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My best apologies

I didn't realize you are not italian--Pierpao (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance

You've been fairly active in re-writing policies and guidelines for clarity and usability, I thought you might be able to lend a hand at Template talk:Hidden archive top and the ongoing re-write of Wikipedia:Refactoring. The main thing we are trying to accomplish is setting out when a thread may be appropriately "hatted" with the {{hat}} template. –xeno^talk 13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, will it wait till tomorrow evening or Monday though? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, at your convenience. Thanks, –xeno^talk 15:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

• Just as an FYI I've tagged Wikipedia:Wheel war/Examples as historical and unlinked it from WP:WW - it seems unnecessary, and the examples that hadn't been modified since 2006 were just plain wrong by today's standards. The content you added may have a place elsewhere, or a more recent page may be in order. I added the cases to the WP:WW section - rather inelegantly though (the page has no reflist!), so please feel free to tweak there as well. –xeno^talk 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - and I've done a little tidying up of that section too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Request For Assistance 23/03/10

I was hoping for some help with the following page -http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&action=history. The revisions on 22:09 and 22:30 on 23 March 2010 are very offensive and derogatory, and paint the religion and its supporters in bad light. Would it be possible to hide these comments on page history? Thanks very much xeno^talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by James11235 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, FT2. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

I was puzzled by a reference to a "declined block" in the list of things that a user might not remove from his user page. Looking at the history, I see that when you redrafted WP:UP in March, you replaced part of the section "Removal of comments, notices, and warnings" which included:

Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress), and, for anonymous editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates.

with a list starting:

Declined block, ban and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect)

I guess that was not what you inteded, and I have replaced it with

Declined unblock requests, ban and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect)

The question that actually took me to that page was whether a user might remove a block notice while still in effect. The section doesn't cover that; but I see no reason to prohibit it, since while a user is blocked anyone looking at his contributions or editing his talk page sees a block notice anyway.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Good pain (BDSM)

The article Good pain (BDSM) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources. Does not meet GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stillwaterising (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)