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 Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open.

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive
  Closed topics are archived to approx. November 20 2007.

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

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

RFPC draft

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

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

I thank you for your comment and update about WP:THREAT policy.

I think that what you have written about the policy should also include any legal actions that is in progress (User:Sam Sloan is one of them - blocked for actual legal lawsuit against, persumably another Wikipedians over edits on article about himself, among other disputes outside Wikipedia.) SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(Note for future reference: relates to this edit to WP:LEGAL - FT2)

User:Jeeny

The Block log [4] isn't showing a reblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Was considering the block log briefly - now addressed. Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that the page should have been protected first. But my experiences with you leads me to believe I'm wasting my time. El_C 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(For future reference: this refers to this block - FT2)

Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately I disagree. Strongly.

Page protection is used to protect high profile pages and cool down intense edit wars (WP:PPOL). Repeated breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA WP:EW do not warrant protection of the user's talk page. There was no edit war on it, nor would protecting that page effectively protect the community in any way from such actions on other pages and other users' talk pages. It would also mean the unblock template could not be used.

Until further abused, the talk page and email access were both left unblocked, on the basis that unless proven otherwise, Jeeny may have (this time) actually used them civilly and for their intended purpose. I was not willing to prejudge that she would not, and that is in line with communal norms such as assuming good faith. The harm if wrong was non-existant as the page can be protected later if abused.

In short, there is zero basis in policy for page protection as a result of one person's breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Wikipedia also tries to use minimum measures.

By contrast, WP:BLOCK is specific to the editor who is attacking others, and does refer to repeated personal attack and incivility -- numerous times.

The final answer is simple. Policies aren't there to be 'gamed'. Jeeny knows very well the community's view on attacks and incivility, having headbutted it many times now and had it cited to her, and the issue is not the page (which is not being warred over), but her conduct which needs attention.

("I expected my talk page to be protected and you didn't do it" seems a very strange complaint.)

I take this moment to say that I hope when the block expires, she will edit with others without the need to act poorly as has been the case in the past. It would make things a lot easier.

Thanks, and hope this clarifies why not blocking her talk page was in fact the best interpretation of communal norms and policies on this occasion.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A user talk may be protected when a blocked user gets out of hand, to stop that disruption. Block extension just punishes for this disruption but allows for it to continues and might result in more frustration and yet further disruption. You should follow common sense not the convoluted above. I was trying my best to explain this simple principle to Swatjester, but failed. Looks like I fail again with you. El_C 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are asking me to assume bad faith, assume Jeeny's response, and protect a page on which she might wish to seek unblocking, and that had never needed to be protected before? That's an pre-emptive bad faith assumption I feel we may not agree upon.

Commonsense says Jeeny herself has the capability to post or not post, and she alone must choose on each occasion whether she does so well or poorly. Protecting in advance when there was no visible cause, would pre-empt that decision of hers, and either be, or give the appearance of, bad faith.

Jeeny herself is responsible for her posts. If she feels the need, she could post upon unblocking a courteous note on her page that if she is blocked again, her talk page should also be protected to prevent her making it worse for herself. That would probably be fully respected and honored - but it's her choice. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how not protecting the talk page led to Jeeny being uncivil. The act of not protecting the page allows for unblock appeals. 1 != 2 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I see you're not quite finished. I will likely publish in the next 5-10 minutes; I'll take the last thing you've saved on my talk page and copy it over. If you have any additional changes, you can add them yourself here. Ral315 » 07:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Knowledge Disclaimer

You will recall edit request made on the 'General Disclaimer' talk page, to insert 'traditional knowledge' into existing list of potential, pre-existing intellectual property rights that may be contained in Wikipedia articles?

You asked me to advise on outcome of my searches re: United Nations Declaration, country statutes, court law etc. Please now find below initial outcomes of those searches (for which I needed to go outside Wikipedia!), copied from posting on Village pump

Given the above, is there any chance you might reconsider, or perhaps recommend other/alternative action/ direction? Bruceanthro (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My addition was a comment on the legal nature of a disclaimer and a quick sanity check if the proposal had meaning legally. If the case makes sense legally then I'll support, if it doesn't have a good legal basis it's hard to. I've copied this note to that page (link), as it's best discussed there not here, and I'll catch you on that page instead :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regis Silva, Hotel des Arts, and User:Greatartists210

DELETE ARTICLE ASP

A tag has been placed on Regis Silva requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WebHamster 03:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This was a cleanup of a bio posted by the subject; the text is GFDL'ed. It probably will be deleted, but SPEEDY isn't correct since it makes a possible claim of notability which needs more eyeballs to decide. I listed it for AFD instead. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

HOTEL DES ARTS

COPYRIGHTS VIOLATION

copyrighted material

if you use this fragmented sentence: "Materials used include wall-mounted vinyl records, plastic bags, graffiti, fabrics, three dimensional art work, and even installations."

you must give a reference to it. It is violating the copyright material without giving credit to the author or source.

AND also YOU will need a signature and documentation from the owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatartists210 (talk • contribs)

Already commented on your talk page long before this. Short answer (again!): text posted under the GFDL is licensed like everyone elses' here, and is not for you to withdraw at a later stage. That is why we state clearly beneath every edit you make, "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL".

You have been asked, and were explained, many times, that Wikipedia is not intended to be used to promote yourself and your art, by multiple users who have tried to help explain that this is an encyclopedia of knowledge.

Please re-read your talk page carefully this time, remembering the aim is to promote general knowledge. Instead of trying to write text primarily about yourself, consider adding your profound artistic knowledge in other areas where it would help people around the world -- but do not add content and links about yourself. That's all.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE ALL INFORMATION

please remove all information of the artist above. and do not publish IP if you dont want me to remove it by myself.

remove all artist information from wikipedia

The artist above sent me a request to remove all his information from wikipedia. The artist is complaining that his name is showing associated with wikipedia on google search. The artist never agreed in any way or any form to be associated with wikipedia. Please remove all information from the artist above from wikipedia web site and seach database.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatartists210 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading your statement, I am very impressed with the links you are providing there already. You are setting the standard for everyone else! This surely secured my vote! — Sebastian 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your enthusiasm! I replied to your message on my talk page. — Sebastian 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

Jeeny

If you look at User talk:Jeeny#Continuing our discussion, you'll see she has agreed to follow all guidelines relating to civility and AGF. She seems to have calmed down, and is willing to work with me to resolve conflicts before they escalate. I've posted this to Swatjester, too. Jeffpw (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If mentoring works, then it will solve the problem well. Provisionally unblocked to allow trial. See comment on Jeeny's talk page for more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much FT2. I am taking this very seriously. I feel my own reputation is on the line, as well, and will do my best to be a good mentor. Jeffpw (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My support's there too if needed. To underline that, if you need to find me or you or Jeeny need a hand, I'm often able to be found quickly: I'll drop you some ways to contact me by email. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

thank you for comment

Thank you for your advice. You certainly took the time to think and write. I am not on a campaign about my husband. If I were, I'd go through dispute resolution, not RFA. In fact, I pledge to be desysoped if I intervene with my husband's account.

I realize that the chances of passage is extremely unlikely but the ideas I possess are good. If others learn, that's good. If they pass it, it's even better. Heidianddick 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

I didn't get it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question for you here. edward (buckner) 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. What is the etiquette here? Can I reply to your reply? There are some details that I would like to point out. edward (buckner) 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

After giving the matter some thought, I have cast a vote for you in the ArbCom elections - as despite your run-in with me, I honestly believe that you will make a fine arbitrator sans that single aberration. The rest of your works show talent at mediation and understanding. However, please consider the source next time you examine a wildly false post on ANI, as you will save other Wikipedia users from unnecessary stress. Thanks, and good luck. FCYTravis 05:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bodil locket.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bodil locket.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That was years ago :) But okay, I guess it needs updating :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question again

I think you misunderstood my scientific bias question. I did include a diff to what you said here:

• Scientific (including anti-scientific and scientific skepticism): favoring (or disfavoring) a scientist, inventor, or theory for non-scientific reasons. This can also include excessive favoring (or disfavoring) prevalent scientific opinion, if in doing so, notable viewpoints are no longer being treated neutrally.

Most of it is your edit, yes? The bullet point illustrates examples of bias, one of which is 'scientific'. By editing this you implicitly endorse the context of what you are editing, no? Thus, no 'straw man'. You are not quite right on 'straw man' either, by the way, but let's not go there. edward (buckner) (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm writing here because the existing thread is too difficult to edit. edward (buckner) (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections - Voting Talk page

Good afternoon. I know you and Dbuckner have been in communication regarding the talk page of your voting page. Dbuckner has blanked the page, citing a mutual agreement with you. His discussion on the matter with WJBscribe may be found here. As much of the material was objectionable to you (based on your comments), I doubt very much that you would disagree with the decision. However, purely as a pro forma point of procedure, I wanted to notify you of the edit and inform you that, should you object for some reason, you should let me know. It looks like a good resolution to the situation, and - unless you inform me otherwise - I'll leave it alone per your mutual consent. Best wishes for your candidacy, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny redux

From the festive (above) to the sad. Have you seen the post on the ANI board? Jeffpw (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw. My first question too was, "is that someone else". You did the best you could. Credit to you, and also sadness as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom Question

That's a very good answer. Thanks, and good luck in your work, should you be appointed. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Russell Bishop - Tag

I've added a hatnote. Anyone who doesn't get the hint after that is too dense to warrent further consideration.Geni 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Then we assume that most people have worked out that sometimes a name belongs to more than one person. If not we take the position it is not our job to deal with the problems caused by those unable to function in a modern civilisation.Geni 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Trying to argue a BLP case is amusing but since BLP deals with the subject of the article it is entirely irrelevant in this case. Please I'm geni if you want to rule lawyer against me have the decency to do a better job than that (I mean seriously I could make a better case that the template is in violation of BLP that is how weak your case is). Try some right of personality IP law or something. Sure you will still lose but at least it shows some effort.

Anyway now we've got that out of the way perhaps we can consider the actual issues. First you contend that an appearance on the front page of the New York times doesn't help much in making you notable (February 26, 1886). Second the BBC has things like this with no "oh noes there be more than one person in the world called Russell Bishop please take this into account". Why because they like the most people assume that the general public can cope with the concept of two different people having one name (no the US goverment is not part of the general public). So the correct response to the email is that we are very sorry to hear that but other people's inability to cope with basic concepts is not our problem (obviously in slightly more diplomatic language). Hatnotes are not an answer because there is not a problem we should be solving. They are simply required in this case because of the existence of a disambig page.Geni 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OTRS decisions do not have the level of power you seem to suggest they do. If there is no reason to legitimately disambig the person then remove the hatnote and disambig page.Geni 19:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

horrible time

I have been having a horrible time staying connected and I was unable to support in time. But I want you to know I was EXTREMELY impressed by the way you answered questions and your final answer made me a big fan. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

(Re: Draft article User:FT2/Schwarz, request for NPOV/BLP review following DRV here.)

Looks good. The only three suggestions I have are:

1. Cite or remove the sentence "The Department of Justice and a number of courts have strongly criticized these actions."
2. Cite or remove the clause "the Department of Justice as a whole taking the unusual step of authorizing non-service of further requests until payment is made for past requests."
3. Change the link to Department of Justice to a piped link which skips the disambiguation page.

Good work! Stifle (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They're cited in the body of it, I can also cite in the intro if needed - probably wise. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Update, 2+3 fixed, 1 left for now.

Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

re Dwellers of the Forbidden City close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City

Thank you for your thoughtful closing statement on this AfD. --Jack Merridew 09:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Though it's going to serve as fodder for deletionists, and likely drive people away from contributing to article improvement. Happy?Shemeska (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not a question of "happy" or "unhappy". AFD closes almost never create a precedent, and they are based purely on statements, cites and evidence submitted. As noted, the actual evidence was problematic. No competent AFD closer is going to use this as a precedent. Better evidence may exist, but AFD implies the asking of a valid question, "can we show notability", and at that time and on that evidence the answer was as stated. If the covert aim is a hope of changing communal norms for deletion or inclusion, then that's not a matter for AFD. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, let me apologize for adding that "happy?" at the end of that prior post. It was inappropriate of me.Shemeska (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would, in turn, like to thank you for writing to Pilotbob. I understand that many, perhaps most, D&D articles would fail the notability test. Some editors, like Gavin Collins and Pilotbob have nominated dozens of articles for AFD with mixed results in the last few months; some keep, some delete, some no consensus. In some cases, such as Red Hand of Doom, Gavin for one can get hooked on trying to prove a point, where he listed that particular AFD at the Wikiproject page, stating "Listed to establish a precedent as to whether modules without decent references from independent sources are deletable or not." I figured I would speak up to remind the deletionists that admins are to be neutral, and not "friends" of any one "side" or another. BOZ (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

FT2, I have never taken serious issue before with your usually magnificent closings of difficult discussions. But this time, I think you did wrong in making use of a unique criterion for deletion that is not part of policy : "We have no sources evidenced at this AFD to show notability from outside the genre and fan-circles. " I don't think that this is valid. WP is a comprehensive encyclopedia with many special topics covered, and there is no requirement whatsoever that they be notable outside of their own circle. I recognize that you do give a full discussion of why notability within fan circles in not sufficient, but the conclusion of an afd is not the place for the closer to make new policy. I haven't any idea whether such a policy would get consensus. It could be used to delete almost anything that didn't get reviewed in the Times or the Guardian. Yes, you are careful to say you are not making precedent, and that WP does not make precedent--but though we may decide other articles on the subject differently. But in using this criterion you are doing very close to that: setting a precedent for the arguments that are considered valid. . I have no particular views about the notability of add ons to video games, and thus I did not comment at the AfD. But I do have views about the role of admins in closing afds, and oner of them is not to attempt to set new policy for WP. If you thought that should have been the policy you should have joined the discussion, or proposed it at WP:N or VP. DGG (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A fair point. I'd like to think on that one, and will discuss it with you, and if need be reword it. There's a balance there and on that point, the wording doesn't quite capture it. You'll notice I modified my own wording there a few times trying to capture it, then figured it was "close enough". Evidently not quite. Whilst this close seems solid anyhow (only one mention gave any significance, and that of uncertain impact), the point you mention is valid. I'll think on it a bit and get back to you, if you're agreeable to that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Email for you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks, reply being written. Agreed that it's tricky. DGG (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Much respect to you all, thanks.  :) Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/Whatever applies, since I didn't say it before. :) BOZ (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• see: User:Webwarlock/workspace//Dwellers. --Jack Merridew 17:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. I saved the article before it was deleted. I want to try to make changes to it and improve in the hopes of bringing it back one day; simplly put, I could not devote the time and effort on this and a score other AfDs during a Christmas break. To this end yours (FT2's) comments are invaluable. Now, I am not sure of the procedure yet to bring an article back, but I figure I have some time and of course, I actually need to improve it first. Web Warlock (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi. Would you please ask AN to delete his version of Schwarz also (User:Anynobody/test area). I am really not to deal with him directly as per the COFS arb.[5] Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, and nicely thought of. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy Holidays! --JustaHulk (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you comment?

See Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Previous_username_blocks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is official

Welcome aboard. :-) FloNight (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your new appointment as Arbitrator! Good luck, and don't wear yourself out :) Majorly (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! No doubt you will do well in serving on arbcom. --Aude (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Kirill 23:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Not that I ever doubted you would make it with flying colors, but well done nonetheless, my friend. I'll be keeping an eye open for your thoughtful hand in future cases. Congrats again! ♠PMC♠ 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, FT2. Hope you keep your excellent demeanor intact, and do not get stressed-out when dealing with our "lengthy litigations". Best wishes in the new role. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, lol, and you were nervous about running. Sheesh. Best of luck to you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My prayers are with you -- seriously! I am reminded of the maxim, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread..." -JodyB _talk 13:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats :-) WjBscribe 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for you to describe your experiences with WP:Confidential evidence

First off, let me congratulate you on your appointment to the Arbitration Committee. It is apparent that you will have your work cut out for you, and I wish you the best in that important work.

You recently spearheaded an effort to distill one of the issues from the Durova case into a policy, that being WP:Confidential evidence. One of the processes you used was to have all of the variant proposals on a single page; this made a lot of sense to me as a useful way in which to create a new policy/guideline from the ground up. Following your example, I have recently attempted a similar idea at WP:Private correspondence, but it appears that other editors are finding this confusing. Do you think you might have a moment to pop over to the talk page of that proposed policy to explain the principles of having multiple proposed versions on the same page? I am not asking you to comment on the proposals themselves, simply the use of this process for policy development. Thanks. Risker (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dwellers of the Forbidden City. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Polaron | Talk 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

See? I told you it'd all work out. :) Congrats on becoming an arbcom member now! -- Schneelocke (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good to hear. I am sure you will do a great job. 1 != 2 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You were accepted? Thank you on behalf of us all, you poor, poor bastard. --Kizor 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

Hi, FT2. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A heads up

I'm getting up to speed on Arbcom at the moment and will be for a while. Theres a lot to it, I'm figuring out how best to arrange it and ensure it's done. As a result, for the next while, a lot of routine stuff may have to be left out. Please do let me know whats up and where help's needed - I'll do what I can. But I hope folks'll understand if I set Arb stuff as a priority for the next while, and won't feel upset if I'm not always able to. If it's really important, let me know. I'll try :)

Thanks! Whoever said it was a lot of work - they weren't kidding! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC ArbCom case comment

Please see this, which concerns you. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

I disagree with your assessment here,[6] but won't press the point. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(See also this warning which covers the same item) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. I was rather shocked to see such a failure to AGF by an admin. Yes, sarcasm isn't always helpful, but in this case it was right to the point, a good one, and very true, which makes your desparagement of it in that manner appear to be a support for the coddling of fringe editors. I trust that is not the case, but it could appear to be so. Please refactor your edit so as to show good faith and to remove any suspicions that an admin believes in protecting the guilty and punishing those who are, however misguidedly (and I'm not defending SA's incivility!), attempting to protect Wikipedia from disruptive editors.

As to your accusation of it being a POINT violation, maybe so, but an AGF would interpret it to be what under the circumstances may have been a natural expression of righteous indignation when one observes what one perceives to be an injustice occurring. I, OTOH, do agree with the judgment that SA needs to stop the incivility, so I don't disagree with the block, but I think that you shouldn't be so harsh in judging that user who happened to break in at a touchy moment in time. -- Fyslee / talk 06:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This may help. It's the central text at Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

In a sense, this text is WP:POINT.....

"In the past, many contributors have found their wikistress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has been handled unfairly in their view. ... It is tempting to illustrate a point using ... parody ... For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. These activities are generally disruptive ... In general, such edits are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Many readers consider such techniques spiteful and unencyclopedic, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus."

The statement "Please realize that it's more important to coddle trolls than to spend time doing something productive", posted right in the middle of a discussion with someone who has been through arbcom and still is having trouble understanding where he is going wrong, and has just had two or 3 admins tell him his (short) block request will be declined, is... unhelpful... in the extreme. It is irrelevant what it was intended to prove, or why. You may disagree, and I will respect your right to do so. But that is a comment that was disruptive, and it was posted in that style to make the posters' point by parody or irony. The view on it stands. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that it may have been a borderline POINT vio because of the timing, I'm just trying to get you to see that there might be another way of looking at the situation, a more charitable way. Whatever. It's all a mess anyway, and I hope SA learns a lesson. Have a Happy New Year! -- Fyslee / talk 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Matrix bullets.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Matrix bullets.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Matrix clone explosion.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Matrix clone explosion.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, FT2

Wishing you the best for 2008! Acalamari 18:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful ArbCom candidacy as well. Acalamari 18:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RFAR Basboll

I added another comment at RFAR regarding Basboll which can be read here Please reconsider.--MONGO 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pilotbob

Hey, just noting that User:Pilotbob has apparently rejected your proposal for reducing his AfD load and a rather heated discussion is taking place regarding his actions here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. Pilotbob (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"I appreciate FT2's concerns, but many of these articles can't be fixed." sounds like a refusal to me. That and you never explicitly agreed to it either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Erik Mona → User:Iquander

Erik Mona would appear to be User:Iquander [7] [8] [9] who has been involved with many of the D&D articles and AfDs, etc. This is a huge conflict of interest and I'm not sure what the appropriate course is? Thoughts? --Jack Merridew 10:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. just saw the Dwellers... DRV - which is regrettable. Good luck with your new posting. --Jack Merridew 10:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out my post to Gavin's page for my full response to your claims of conflict of interest. You'll note that two of the links you provide go to the very first Wikipedia page I even created before I knew all of the guidelines about POV, and that I actually voted to DELETE that page when it recently came up for AFD. Since shortly after learning the POV rules at Wikipedia I have been cautious to avoid editing pages with which I am directly related. I do not comment on the products I wrote or edited and do not participate in their AFDs, such as the currently ongoing one about the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, a book I co-wrote. Iquander (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

James Barker (athlete)

Hi, I'm concerned about how you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete). I saw very little consensus for a resolution of "merge redirect" — and in fact, I don't see any firm consensus to delete the article either. I think the decision to merge redirect is a very bad choice for this article, as I pointed out several times in the debate. I think it sets a terrible precedent for thousands of similar articles. I wish to open the debate at deletion review, but would like to hear your comments first. Thanks. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I stated "redirect" as the close, I think. And per your last comment on the page, it seems we agree there was indeed significant views on this: "I remain puzzled why 'redirect' is continually offered as a resolution for this AfD". AFDs do not usually set precedents, though; rather, each case is judged on its own evidence and merits. I listed my reasoning in detail in 6 points. Maybe let me know which ones concern you? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I meant "redirect"!! Not sure where my brain was at there... My biggest concern is that this AfD may be viewed as the tip of the iceberg for thousands of similar articles, and I want to make sure we have a solid consensus before things get messy. Here's the context of that article:

1. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics, we are working towards creating pages for the complete results for every Olympic Games. This is a massive undertaking, but of course, wikipedia:there is no deadline. The important thing to have early in the project is a consistent framework which everything can be built upon.
2. To that end, there is a general "hierarchy" of articles. At one level, we have the main articles for each Games, such as 1912 Summer Olympics. Beneath that, we have per-sport articles (such as Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics) and per-nation articles (such as Great Britain at the 1912 Summer Olympics). In some cases, we have completed the results and have per-event pages (such as Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres) linked from the per-sport pages.
3. The per-event pages are where we often have large numbers of athletes listed. In that 1912 race (where James Barker competed), there are 70 different athletes who competed, and all names are wikilinked. Currently, 39 are blue links to per-athlete articles, and 31 are still redlinks. If you look at those athlete articles, you'll see that many of them are not really all that different from Barker's — they provide a summary of their Olympic results, but not a lot else. If we deem that Barker's article fails WP:BIO, then many of those others might too.
4. So then, what should we do with those 31 redlinks and the majority of those 39 articles? I think that redirecting them anywhere is awkward and unhelpful. Consider the experience of a user browsing the page. Currently, they have a clue of which athletes have bio articles and which don't, by looking at the link color. If all the non-notable athletes are redirects, then that clue is lost. Redirecting from the athlete's name back to the high-level 1912 Summer Olympics article doesn't serve any useful navigation purpose, in my mind. The user knows they are reading about results from the 1912 Games. Why would we send them back to that article if they expected to read more about an individual athlete? In the Afd discussion, I had described the effect of two other possible redirect targets: if we redirect back to the event page itself (Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres), then many of those 70 names would be bold text instead of wikilinked text. That would look strange. If we redirect back to the "team" page (i.e. Great Britain at the 1912 Summer Olympics), then when that page is completed, dozens to hundreds of athlete names (in different sports) would also be displayed in bold text. Again, not useful. I assert that there is no useful redirect target for these athlete names. Either we accept the redlink, or de-link them.
5. This is a huge issue for me because I think it sets direction for the Olympics wikiproject. If we complete all the results pages, we will have over two hundred thousand atheletes named, by my estimate. So how should we direct editors to complete those pages? The alternatives are: a) don't link names unless articles exist, b) link all names, but do not create an article if it cannot list more than the basic results information (like Barker's article did), or c) link all names and feel free to write stub articles that document each athlete's Olympic achievement. Right now, I think the assumption is that c) is our preferred solution, but if articles created under this assumption are going to be challenged and deleted, then that is discouraging for our editors. We are much better served by declaring b) or a) as the right course of action.

To be honest, I am ok either way if the article is kept or deleted. But I am adament that a redirect is a bad precedent. Right now, the redlinks on those pages are an invitation for editors to write stub articles on those athletes, and that's precisely how we got James Barker (athlete) in the first place. User:doma-w has created many of those athlete articles to help "complete" these Olympic pages. Do we send a message to editors like him that they should create redirects instead? I would rather say that we should keep the name redlinked if we cannot write stub articles that at least meet our criteria for encyclopedia inclusion.

I hope this makes sense... Thanks, — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It does, and thanks for a clear explanation, I see where you're at. I think my immediate reaction is you will need to expect a mix. Some of those athletes will merit a bio. For example, Sebastian Coe. Others however will only be famous for one event - they had no notability except being part of one olympics. What I'd be tempted to say is this, and I'd support checking all of these:

• Don't worry too much about precedent. Using one case as a precedent for another, is not really how AFD works.
• Use WP:RFC. List your issues above and ask the community how best to handle it. Classic Wikipedia answer -- seek wider consensus on the basic issue, don't just go for "wrong or right" thinking. By the time you get comments, you'll have a lot more ideas than you do now.
• This situation has parallels with other "series" type issues, in which the question whether each member gets an article regardless, just for being one of the "class", comes up.

Try that?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, but I'd still like to know why you chose redirect to close that specific AfD instead of delete. Your comments in the closing summary did not specifically mention why you chose "redirect", although they did clearly say why you didn't close as "keep". Thanks, — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A redirect is appropriate if we can't sustain an article on someone at the present, and yet they're likely to get occasional "clicks" to look them up, or they're associated with one main event or topic that does have an article. Of course in this context your concern is people clicking on them from the 1912 games, where it obviously isn't going to be useful to link them if an article doesn't exist I suspect. Again, see RFC and ask views. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

TDC

See User talk:TDC. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

More help needed

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:ScienceApologist ScienceApologist (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback mess

I understand completely your reluctance to have ArbCom decide – on behalf of the community – how non-admin rollback should be handled. I agree fully with your assessment that the community should be given every chance to work things out for itself before the ArbCom (or anyone else) should have to impose a top-down solution.

Would you be willing to reconsider your outright rejection of the case to allow a much more limited intervention by ArbCom? I proposed in my statement a temporary injunction declaring a moratorium on granting rollback bits. The injunction would remain in effect only until such time as the community has an opportunity to consider its own fully-thought-out rollback policy. I normally don't bug Arbs on their talk pages about their decisions (I'm pretty sure this is the first time) but I didn't want you to miss this. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't missed. I had (before noticing this) added a comment that the community may wish to have a moratoruim, but I'm not inclined to accept the case, to decide to have one. Reasons being, 1/ instruction creep ... its still best in all senses if the community can decide a matter, to let it ("shall we have a moratorium while we reconsider" is not a hard thing to decide). 2/ Low level of harm that rollback actually can do, if abused, and ease of removal, hence even if left "as is", not an emergency. Hope that helps! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback RFAR

Please review: this and reconsider. This situation is hopeless, if some ultra minority of admins is going to drive an edit war to even take away the community's voice to decide such things like this, and kill an in-process vote that Jimbo called for. Lawrence Cohen 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On the flip side of Lawrence's request, this is exactly why the moratorium injunction I requested is needed. People who would like some sort of stable framework are rushing to try to establish polls and write policy as quickly as possible, which is leading to (another) poll where the question keeps changing while voting is in progress, and no one is taking time for a calm, deliberative discussion. Meanwhile, people who don't care about the policy vacuum are going ahead and granting (and now revoking) rollback all over the place.

It's up to either ArbCom or Jimbo to stop the madness and give everyone a breather—and for better or worse it looks like Jimbo has dropped the potato in your lap. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look

I thought you might want to know that El_C has not been sitting idly by since the closing of the DreamGuy complaint. As its now clear he's planning a complaint of his own, you might wish to be forewarned. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been away...

But congratulations on your ArbCom victory!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia/Zeraeph ArbCom - proposed decisions/Discussion by arbitrators

Hi. I've just been looking through your comments in relation to my offensive language used during a discussion. I have indeed previously lapsed in applying civility, but it is not the matter to which SandyGeorgia is referring to - as noted by you. SG has misunderstood the context of the comments to Ceoil, which is the matter already referred by you previously. The other time I uttered those words were back in February of last year, before I became an admin, and even more regrettably they were then directed at SandyGeorgia... I have no problem in having your comments remain as they are, but thought I would try to clarify what the other incidence was, i.e. unrelated to this matter. I do, indeed, take serious note your reminder. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) And thanks also for understanding the spirit in which it was offered :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [10]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Waaaaaargh! This process is broken, because, I suspect, admins already have enough to do. I'd really appreciate advice on moving forwards here, because I want to contribute even more than I do already. User:Rodhullandemu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); I get frustrated waiting for an admin to come to WP:AIV when I could do it myself. I think I'm ready to take on the obloquy that comes with being an admin, but I would prefer someone to point out my deficiencies beforehand so that I can deal with them; I've already approached User:Jehochman in this regard, and I am not reference-hopping, just approaching people I trust here. If you and he suggest "no", that's just fine. I would rather have it from editors whose judgement I trust rather than from others. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wizards and Muggles Rock for Social Justice!

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

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

I have sent one - Zeibura ^(Talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

Er, I did reply (if you didn't get it all I said was that it was good enough for me). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, resent. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeibura

Feel free to second the nomination. :) I need to add mine now. Acalamari 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:FT2/Templates/Contact

I made a syntax tweak here. Old way probably worked in most browsers, but this is proper form. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Can someone please do something with this thing's posting? It is fucking harassing me at this point and doing nothing but sockpuppet and harass now. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More evidence they're all BFP

here going after this "archenemy" Eschoir. This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. Lawrence Cohen 14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of ongoing disruption from these users or this user. Could we bump up the priority on this? It seems like a very disruptive person has figured out how to game checkuser by using remote desktop, or by recruiting meat puppets. Could somebody make a determination on the issue of sock puppetry? Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Regan

Hi. A while back you fixed Andrew Regan after the OTRS issue. Since then it has been edited twice to change the contentious section. The edits were very similar and both removed the SFO reference and replaced it with others. I can't see anything seriously wrong with the new text but I reverted it once, just for removing the SFO reference. I have not reverted it again as I don't want to start an edit war over something that may not even be important. I wonder if you wouldn't mind looking at it as it is now and see if you think it is OK as it is? Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Were They Thinking?

An essay entitled Wikipedia:What Were They Thinking? in which features Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City is currently being reviewed for deletion. Some of the editors who opposed your decision are pushing for it to be kept. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about whether a proposed finding of fact has a chance

Is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop#"Decommissioned highway" is a neologism a content decision, or does it have a chance of passing? If the former, is there a way I can reword it to make it acceptable? --NE2 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming suggestion

I saw the arbcom's creation of the new Wikipedia:WORKINGGROUP. Might it not be a better thing naming-wise to have the shortcut WP:WORKINGGROUP point at some general page like Wikipedia:WikiProject or a disambig of the Arbcom's general idea of working groups and have a special WP:EthnicWG for this project? I can't image this will be the last group ever appointed by Arbcom and it seems like a specific thing to have a general shortcut point at. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hiya, I was wondering if you could maybe give me some advice on something? There's a dispute at the Franco-Mongol alliance article with a tendentious editor who's WP:OWNing the article, that's been dragging on for months now. I'm worried that it's heading to ArbCom, since we've been trying pretty much every other step of DR, but without success. Talkpage discussion, polite messages to his user talkpage, an article RfC,[11] a few ANI threads, and mediation,[12] but no luck. We're to the point now where the editor, PHG (talk · contribs) is faking edit summaries, like saying he's doing a revert, when in actuality he's adding more POV information into the article. For discussion and diffs, see here.[13]

If at all possible I'd like to avoid ArbCom, since that's such a time-consuming process and this editor is so clearly disruptive, but he's so good at posting misleading messages and summaries, that it's been difficult to get any admin to take action. ANI threads turn into circuses, consensus gets challenged, and nothing ends up being done. :/ Do you have any suggestions on any other way that we might be able to proceed, to avoid having to waste everyone's time in a lengthy ArbCom case? Thanks, Elonka 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud Lesar

Khoikhoi's been inactive on Wikipedia, and doesn't use the computer as often as he did before. He did say that if that someone should e-mail him if the case was accepted. Given your comments, I think I will e-mail him anyway and ask him if he can meet your terms without the need of ArbCom intervention. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed him already. Feel free to do so as well though. It's not so much "terms", as "a point of respect":- does he feel public or private review is best given the circumstances. I need to know which way he feels, as a responsible admin, is appropriate, is all, so I can respect it and decide accordingly if theres a need for arb eyeballs. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let me know if he sends you a reply. Another editor told me that he had a chat with Khoikhoi yesterday. I'll discuss the subject of the chat with you via e-mail. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman case

Was just reading the new material on the proposed decision page. I have no commentary on the substance of the case, but might I suggest a rewording that Adam Cuerdan's (sp?) adminship is _suspended_ rather than _waived_? Seems to be clearer. I think one can waive something that is otherwise a requirement, but one cannot waive a status or a privilege. Cheers, Martinp (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the wording just the way it is. Please do not change. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Waived" was the wording Adam himself asked to be used in place of "suspended" when the matter of a break from adminship during suspension of the case was discussed a while back. To clarify, it is not the intention or aim to punish Adam; rather it is hoped he will have a break from the pressures of the mop, and re-establish a track record that others have concerns over right now, and then be able to resume normal adminship with a clean set of heels. Evidence suggests there are good reasons this might be what's needed. He asked that word be used even though as a norm, "suspended" might be the more usual choice. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have considered the wording and judiciously chosen the wording that you feel is best suited to resolve the conduct issue before you, then that is all one can ask. At the same time, I feel somewhat uncomfortable to the extent that individual parties' preferences might be getting in the way of clearly articulated decisions. However, I have no standing in this case, have not examined the issues in detail, and defer to your individual and the arbcom's collective wisdom on the way forward. Martinp (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's exceptional, I'll admit. Adam is upset, stressed, has real life stuff going on, and wants a word that feels right and "safer" to him too. I don't have a problem with that; we both know what's meant, and reassurance such as can be given within that, I'm glad to see him have. A lot went on in the background too. I'm not really minded to stand on protocol for no real benefit when a good contributor could otherwise be helped slightly by a slightly unorthodox or ungramatical choice of word. We have to deal with the case neutrally. But neutrality does not preclude recognizing where all parties are at and what has taken place, or what would help them to handle the future better; in fact better resolutions and decisions require it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152

I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay38 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the email. So you also know I am who I say I am (in case you doubted that). :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

history of wikipedia

Hi, does en:wikipedia has guidelines about archiving 'old' guidelines - policy's etc - an archive for historians if they wanted to do research on wiki-history? On nl:wikipedia there is an RFD for these kind of pages, so i wondered. Aleichem (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia, i'll read into that first. Aleichem (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

I've just added headings to hopefully separate some of the issues on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) page - would you like to comment again? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting ticket review

Please see the following ticket on OTRS: 2008020110004707. Make sure you read the note history. Feel free to contact me regarding its contents and the appropriateness of the actions taken. Other Arbitrators with OTRS access, please also review if you'd like. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 08:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ray Williams (businessman)

Thanks for the response there. I'm too cool to look at block logs, so I thought they had all been indef-blocked. Just as a question, do you think it matters which account can now be used to edit? (I would think the first account used should remain, but again that's my just opinion) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01

Do I have an opportunity to respond before being penalized? Anthon01 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are mistaken Other administrators may wish to consider whether to apply sanctions for the topic ban evasion for the topic ban evasion, which was surely not accidental. Do I have the right to defend myself before an action is taken? Anthon01 (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You do, but I should warn you that any claim you did not edit via an IP after the above, will not carry water. I did not disclose the edit in order to take what steps were open to me, to protect your privacy to the extent that was possible. All measures within dispute resolution are open to you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Anthon01. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have sent you emails. The last one is urgent. Please reply. Anthon01 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Some users"

I noticed you used the phrase "some users" in the injunction (which I agree with by the way), but then you linked to examples of a single user (Giano) being considered unblockable. See also your edit summary here: "not pointing finger at any specific users". Do you think that linking four times to evidence sections about Giano might be considered pointing the finger at specific users? This "unbockable" phenomenon does exist, but there are more examples than just Giano. I pointed out Tony Sidaway as an example here. I am sure there are other cases of rapid undoing of blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The question's a good one, and I'm sure you're right. The injunction proposed would apply to all. But the examples, where people felt strongly enough to place it as a specific issue in evidence, were all quoted, equally. The cites were backing up the communal impression, and all views on that were cited. Had some been about one editor and some another, or some evidence sections mentioned "many editors" or "more than one", that's how it would have been. I cited the evidence of the phenomenon as the evidence was presented. You've stated that others have similar phenomenae, and I do agree. For some reason I cannot fathom, none related to others was submitted in evidence as these were. I'm happy to rectify though. Will review tomorrow, its late here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. "For some reason I cannot fathom" - well, those more cynical would say that Giano's reputation precedes him. Those less cynical would say that Giano gets all the attention because he makes a fuss about things worth making a fuss over. Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth has raised me as a possible example of an "unblockable" editor, but I don't see it, really. There were some good blocks, which led to me giving assurances that I'd stop doing whatever I was blocked for, and being unblocked, and there were some bad blocks, which were quickly reversed. All of my blocks were incurred during my tenure as an admin, and I have successfully avoided being blocked for anything since desysopping myself. Make of that what you will. Perhaps I've just become better at getting other people to do admin stuff. ;) --Tony Sidaway 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you probably weren't the best example, but you were the closest example to hand with a long block log. Maybe you can think of a better example? You do agree that Giano is not the only editor where we see this phenomenon? Carcharoth (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think he's been unique in several regards, but those days are apparently over and I don't think further discussion can be productive. --Tony Sidaway 09:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have successfully avoided being blocked for anything since desysopping myself. Make of that what you will. Tony Sidaway 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Let me oversimplify my make: the irc-functionary side, to which you are affiliated, tends to block; while the wiki-content side to which your opponents are affiliated, tends to talk. El_C 10:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That statement seems to me not so much a gross oversimplification as a collection of vague calumnies and long-nursed grudges. I'll leave it there. --Tony Sidaway 10:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not see the relationship; see concrete expressions below. El_C 10:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, that oversimplification also means: no irc blocks for Tony, who is there, and can defend himself in real-time. El_C 10:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

A user just informed me of an arbcom thing about television characters and episodes. Would you take a look at the disucssion on my page and explain to me anything that is required of me as a result of this? JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser on waterboarding RFAR

Thatcher suggested I follow up with a couple of Checkusers directly. If you look here here, on this RFAR case I had put up a motion for a proper RFCU here. It's based on accumulated evidence here on the Evidence page that one or more users involved are the long-banned User:BryanFromPalatine. Thatcher has also weighed on on that Proposed Decision talk page, in the section directly above the one I linked. The evidence is based on a combination of IPs, geolocation (all the users appear to be within 5-15 miles of BryanFromPalatine's known location of Palatine, IL), behavior, and language. Any review would be appreciated. I apologize for the amount of evidence, but it was a complex one. Lawrence § t/e 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Help

I need help. I'm being driven to the point of no return: WP:ANI#Continued harassment ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.148.134.201

This user made a futile attempt to contest your block before blanking his user talk page. Should the blanking be reverted (and page protected if necessary)? TML (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The latter IP is exclusively used at present by a user who has multiple blocks on multiple socks. Its best the note stands. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Corey Delaney

I have not been particularly happy in retrospect about certain of my 2006 ArbCom election choices (one editor whom I opposed has become an arbitrator of whose views and philosophy I generally think highly, and two editors whom I supported have become, in my mind, net negatives on the project), but I find myself to have done much better in 2007, and even as I have had occasion to differ with you on some relatively minor issues, deliberative and moderated analyses such as this (which has, of course, the additional quality of propounding subtly an appropriate formulation of the role of the ArbCom as limited), which you seem to offer up with some frequency, demonstrate to me that my undertaking to support you puts at least one decision of mine in the sensible column. Good on ya! Cheers, Joe 06:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Corey Delaney (II)

Sorry, upon reading it I didn't realise that was part of your post, I thought it was like an "evidence" section or something. sorry about the confusion. Thanks for moving the sources Fosnez (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:MetaNPOV

A tag has been placed on Template:MetaNPOV requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

following

Hi, FT2! I see you're making a few edits based on my response at the ref desk. I hope you don't mind if I change some of them. It's hard to write about these things and be perfectly accurate. But: the plural of virus is viruses. There is no virii :). Also we want to keep the distinction between the virus and the disease which it causes (which can be hard to write around when they share the same name....) - Nunh-huh 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all -- it's welcomed as Im no expert !! I know an article would be useful, and I know enough to know I can kick start it, but I won't get it right 100%... and others will fix it :) Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm done with it now. I hope you'll take the lifetime pledge never to write "virii" again :) - Nunh-huh 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. FWIW, you seem to be writing "neurotropic" where you want "neuroinvasive". Both HSV and rabies are both neurotropic and neuroinvasive, but it's the neuroinvasiveness that distinquishes them from, say, herpes varicella-zoster virus, which is neurotropic (it loves to live in nerve cells, chiefly ganglia, for years and years) but is not neuroinvasive (it stays in peripheral nerve cells). - Nunh-huh 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC) (Oops, I take that back, you're linking to neurotropic but correctly piping it from neuroinvasive).- Nunh-huh 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. We have an article on Plural of virus :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it :) ? - Nunh-huh 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guywithdress

With reference to your investigation on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Guywithdress: I discovered that User:Guywithdress created an article with the exact same text as User:Gnfgb2 did. User:Gnfgb2 is already blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Primetime so that would make Guywithdress a 99% likely sock of Primetime as well.

In the SSP page you said there was a fourth account "created on Feb 9 which has made one edit". You might want to block that one as a sockpuppet too, along with any other accounts on that IP if it's really static. I'd thought of re-opening the Checkuser case on Primetime but since you have the IP info for Guy it may be less difficult for you to directly block his remaining sock.

(All the socks of Guywithdress have the same modus operandi described in WP:'T - occasional use of usernames with random letters and/or creation/upload of material without regards to copyright. All of the copyrighted material is taken from offline sources which makes searching for the original difficult.) Pegasus «C¦T» 01:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention, that article the sock created should be deleted as well, per CSD G5. Regards, Pegasus «C¦T» 13:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Episodes/Characters temporary injunction

I just wanted to alert you specifically to my query about the Arbcom temporary injunction here. This is because your vote for the temporary injunction seemed to specifically indicate that you had some ideas on how it should be interpreted. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the injunction that was recently put into effect, it declares that "nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article". One article, Nadia Yassir was tagged with a (notability) tag. Myself and another user have been working on this article, finding third party sources to show the articles notability, in accordance with WP:FICT. We believe that as the article now has established it's notability, that the tag should be removed, it's a discredit to the work we have put into it. However, as an injunction is currently in effect, I thought I should ask one of the arbitrators for an exemption, if this tag can now be removed. If you could reply on my talk page, here, or, if you see fit, just remove the tags on the article. There is also a merger tag, would that be able to be removed as well? The article is now notable enough to exist in it's own right. Steve Crossin (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Some questions about Zoosexuality and the law

• Where did the article come from? It just appeared on 03:18, 19 May 2006 when you created it. It looks to big too have been created in one edit. Was it split out from somewhere else?
• Why is Template:Derefer used for the link to http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 ?

Thank you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed often work articles on controversial subjects out, before posting them. It's important to do so since on these kinds of subjects finding a neutral view and clear handling of a problematic topic, is not going to happen in a moment, and its important the article doesn't start off being written without a clue. Hence research. Hence checking facts. Hence such articles doesn't start as a stub and then grow. There's a draft of a few others lying round too, that some day I will pick up and work on.

A second factor is, there was a lot of drive towards FA by Raul at that time, and a part of that was to move long sections to their own articles, to keep the main article more "tight". So this is probably a big part of your answer. A separate sub-article means it can cover the subtopic more fully, and yet keep the main article shorter.

But then again, I am a fairly prolific writer on a wide range of topics, and a lot of those I can structure well without much thinking. Facts need research, but good structure and neutral wording I find (for me anyhow) is fairly quick to get ideas on. I do a lot of that for other people and other articles too, on request, or did till current things got busy.

Your other question, old discussion. I can't remember if that one was on the talk page, on some talk page elsewhere that I read, or an email request for help. I do remember some people were concerned to follow links to sources, and that seemed a situation that might arise elsewhere too, so I created a general dereferer template for it, for use anywhere.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Archtransit

I read the recent WP:ANI thread on User:Archtransit. The statement you posted indicated that he has used some confirmed sockpuppets, and others have been suspected. I haven't had much interaction with this user, but I did read a thread where he had unblocked one problematic user, User:CltFn, without consensus. The motives for this action were rather unclear at the time, but, if I read you right, it now appears that Archtransit has unblocked his sockpuppets on several occasions. (CltFn has since been reblocked indefinitely for exhausting the community's patience.) Are you able to confirm if Archtransit and CltFn are the same person? *** Crotalus *** 04:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant, the latter's indef blocked. No disruption would be prevented by retrospective confirmation really. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be relevant to AT's community ban discussion, as well as to any possible future discussion should anyone want to reconsider the CltnFn's ban. R. Baley (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 Unrelated. Thatcher 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Preview

An ancient Wikipedia Arbitrator nobly does the Right Thing and falls on his sword, upon learning that his modification of his own edits have contributed over 93% of the Wikipedia database.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't resist FT2! You tweak everything you do - I think a username change to User:Mr Perfectionist might be in order! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Typically, when FT2 says "tweak", what he really means is "adding another five paragraphs of text". :) – Steel 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My main failing I admit :-/ Mea culpa. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Octavian history

Dear sir, I am not him, but a family member. If you look at his history you will notice he has not done a single vandalism or unconstructive edit. He has also fought against vandals. There are thousands of people who attack wiki every minute with vandalism. I truly can't believe that you would not side with someone who has tried hard to create and improve so many articles. Two of the puppets were friends and family members, not the 100 that have been named. Also, we did not know that friends and family cannot agree about the same subject. I can easily never work on any article that he does from now on if that helps.--Wiki-user3728 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment noted at the request page, and also a request for more checking has been posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit

Out of curiosity, is he going to be desysopped? The log says he still has the bit. User:Dorftrottel 00:39, February 20, 2008

Unfortunately the rights log does not show * de * sysops..... check his entry at Special:Listusers FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked over his project space contribs.....all looks good. (More and AN/I) Tiptoety ^talk 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, nevermind then. User:Dorftrottel 01:24, February 20, 2008

Thanks for the heads-up on this case (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/124.185.79.125). I knew there was something screwy -- it was clear that the sockpuppets I had listed overlapped, and the edits were the same, but didn't know what to do about it as the "discussion" was archived. --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 09:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on your comments

"Open proxy editing is communally barred" - not according to WP:PROXY. Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Its one of those communal sleight of hands, I think. They aren't barred... except when we find them we may block them if abused, and they are routinely blocked on suspicion of abuse. "Communally barred" is probably the wrong term for that, though, and for that I apologize. On reflection I have rewritten a sizeable part of that comment and also added a point which occurred to me on re-reading. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem.

To tell you the truth, I don't remember what the policy is on them half the time, but I remember after CharlotteWeb there was a hue and cry to the effect that it was OK to use them, and Jimbo made some fairly direct remarks backing that view. Relata refero (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Episode and Character Rfar

I have collected some evidence and I want to make sure arbitrators see it. So I would like to ask you to take a look at /Evidence#Real identity of Jack Merridew: Could it be Davenbelle/Moby Dick and the relevant workshop entry and the discussion there: /Evidence#Indefinite block of Jack Merridew

At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision Kirill Lokshin has posted several referances to "television episodes" but that implies an exclusion to non-television related articles (such as articles on movies, video games and books) that were edited by involved parties in an identical manner. The shift particularly intensified after the arbcom remedy on "television related articles". You may want to check /Evidence#Gaming the system such as the arbitration injuction for an example. It might be better to broadly refer to "fiction related articles" to prevent gaming around this. Of course this is my two and a half cents plus tax.

You may also want to take a look at this: /Evidence#Continuing harassment from Ned Scott.

For the most part all these are evidence I posted very recently and I feel they may have slipped by. Thanks!

I'd also like to point out these comments as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive371#White Cat thread which below users are seemingly seeking "admin action" against me collecting evidence for the Episode/Character Rfar. I intend to collect more evidence despite such attempts to prevent me as I feel I am not doing anything disruptive. However your input on that ani thread would be appreciated.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad joke, I need one administrator...

Go to De Rochebelle Middle School and delete this page... This page was created by one student of the real Rochebelle. The real school named Rochebelle is in Québec city and havec 2045 students... Thank you! Félixggenest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.174.66 (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Checked and done. Deleted iunder CSD instead anyway. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United States journalism scandals

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

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

Hi FT2, I just wanted to inform you that I have taken the Wikipedia delegable proxy experiment live. This is a proposal to let users appoint a trusted individual to represent them in debates that they themselves (whether due to time limitations or whatever reason) are not able to personally participate. This system is ideal for your purposes, since given your Arbcom duties, you have limited time to devote to the other aspects of Wikipedia, but many trusted colleagues here. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to User:FT2/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter:

{{subst:Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table/Designate|Absidy}}

I've also come up with this cool advertising banner:

This user supports delegable proxy.

Show your support for delegable proxy! Add this userbox to your userpage using {{User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy}}

(Ordinarily I might view this type of message as a potentially questionable type of canvassing, but I feel entitled to contact you about my ideas and concerns since I am your constituent and you my elected official.) Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; there's a couple of corrections though.

In no sense is arbcom a "representative" body in the sense that say, a senator, governor, parliamentary member or the like is. Arbitrators are a Wikipedia panel that help in dispute resolution, and certain privacy related matters; their experience may mean they propose ideas with a measure of seniority, or occasionally do create new matters resulting from disputes they are asked to consider (the working group on ethnic edit wars being one such). But they are not elected officials, representatives for decisions, or executives in any sense whatsoever. I appreciate the heads up, but note it was made under what seems to be a misapprehension about the standing of arbitrators. We're editors trusted and elected to handle disputes the community isn't handling well, and certain privacy related matters, roughly speaking, and to help keep the project on track despite these. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:AMA, which was closed by community consensus on July 2007. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Great

What a great edit to Radionics [14]. There are so few NPOV editors who come from outside and edit the fringe articles, that one sometimes wonders what such an editor would do if they did happened by. It's just the kind of tone I've been striving for, especially in leads, for years now. And I doubt you consciously tried to meet the standards of the Paranormal ArbCom, but what you did is exactly what it recommends in terms of framing a fringe subject. Again, a sign that both that ArbCom is common sense, and that fringe articles need really neutral editors. There are a couple of interviews here you might be interested in:

Interview with ScienceApologist Interview with Martinphi

The setup page for the interviews

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia holds its critics hostage

hi i created account visitor876 to let you guys know that threats of violence published on wikipedia review then they remove my comments on administrators noticeboard and block my account and i demanded to talk to arbitrator since wikipedia review say violent threats received by arbitrator but they did not let me talk to arbitrator they gave me link but protected my talk page how i supposed to contact arbitrator while blocked so i created new account why they hiding fact that wikipedian threatened wikipedia reviewer with violence it is just like wikipedia review say wikipedia holds its critics hostage you are arbitrator plaese back me up http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16053 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest934 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

Please check your email for a rather urgent message regarding the MM case. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration

Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM BY ZSERO

I am new to Wikipedia and wished to make some valuable contributions to various articles. I was especially concerned about some anti-Semitic material in the Semicha article which states that Semicha was broken and no longer has an unbroken succession to present day. The Roman Catholic Church repeatedly boasts in their articles that their Apostolic Succession (the Christian alternative to Semicha) was never broken and still retains an unbroken succession from the Apostles to the present day. HOWEVER there is no more historical proof of this then there is for an unbroken Jewish Semicha. As a matter of fact there are MORE indications of an unbroken chain of Semicha then their is for Roman Cathoic Apostolic Succession. I quoted two rabbinical sources and because of the publishing house I quoted those particular books were printed by Zsero came in and deleted them. I put it back on and again he deleted them. So I gave up. Next I saw a word that need an apostrophe and added it. Zsero came in and reverted it. I put back the apostrophe. Zsero reverted it. I put it back, he reverted it. Finally I told him to forget it I surrendered (although I had quoted an authoritive source stating the apostrophe was warranted in this case). I next tried to correct a spelling error. he reverted it. Suspicious I had a cyber stalker I decided to test him. I went to the Halaka article and made a change and then undid the change BEFORE I hit the submit button. Therefore the history of the Article showed I made a change but when looking at the history there in reality was no change at all to be observed. Zsero came in AND REVERTED MY EDIT THAT HAD NO CHANGE IN IT WHATSOEVER!!! Zsero cannot claim he reverted it because I edited an error or that I added something wrong. All he can say is the obvious...he edited it just because it was submitted by ME. This is harassment, vandalism, and cyber stalking. I next went to various unrelated articles making "NO CHANGE edits" and he has reverted EVERY "NO CHANGE edit" I have made. There is NOT ONE SINGLE THING I HAVE OR CAN EDIT, ADD, OR SUBTRACT that he will not revert. I have not been able to add as much as a period or an apostrophe that he doesn't go straight there and revert it. I have left messages in his talk page and he immediately reverts them.This individual is a problem that needs to be permanently blocked from harassing editors trying to add beneficial contributions to Wikipedia. Please advise as how this should be handeled. Thank you very much,

RebCoh (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Please comment on Talk:Any Day Now------- regarding the addition of the ichannel as an external link

I am a new user who would like to include an external link to the ichannel for Canadians who would like to view this show. If this is legitimate spamming I would be happy to remove the link. I commented on the talk page that there is a precedent set by lifetime TV for viewers interested in watching the show. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbiejackson (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My Apology

I am very sorry to have become disruptive but if I may I would like to explain my position. This is my very first attempt to join Wikipedia. My first contribution was a brief quote from a Rabbi which was immediately reverted. My second attempt was a brief quotation from Rabbi Worch which was reverted with the following comment "(rv nonsense sourced to a vanity press publication from some idiot)" which hurt me very deeply because of my deep reverence for the Rabbi. I next added an apostrophe after "1800's" which was immediately reverted. I provided Zsero information from "Guide to Punctuation", by Larry Trask, University of Suxxex wherein he states "In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates. American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here." After which he instructs his British readers not to adopt this American practice unless writing for an American audience. Zsero, however, continued to revert the apostrophe. Now that apostrophe was not important to me but he insulted me in my very first editing experience in Wikipedia and then makes a big deal out of an apostrophe,which angered me. So I kept putting the apostrophe back and he kept reverting it, over and over. Finally I just gave up. I went to another site and he followed me there. So I decided to test him. I made a "no change" edit in the Halaka article. He immediately reverted it although there was nothing to revert and no reason for doing it. This angered me and I confronted him with this. He denied there was a "no change" edit and reversion although it is on record for all to see. My anger prompted me to make various comments and childish taunts. By the way, my "Apostrophe Hater" comment was meant as a joke. Obviously I do not believe the world is going to come to an end because of Apostrophe's or that Einstein quoted such. It was an attempt to turn a war into humor. To this very day I am unable to make a SINGLE contribution to Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I find this to be a useless place where just anyone off the streets can come in and edit, revert, and take out there frustrations on other attempting editors. I will not back to Wikipedia. RebCoh (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

Hello FT2, User:Will Beback and myself are proposing: Wikipedia:AN#Prem_Rawat_1RR_parole_proposal ... and we need some assistance to tweak the wording of these restrictions so that they can work in providing the necessary environment for orderly debate and editing process. Care to to take a look and make some suggestions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RebCoh

this edit summary was an attack on the source provided, not on the editor. RebCoh added a nonsense claim to the article, and sourced it to a vanity press publication. When he kept adding it I followed up his contributions to see whether he was making any valid improvements to WP at all. If his other contributions are of such quality then they need to be reversed. What I found was that while not all his contributions were so bad as the one I'd found, they all made the articles worse rather than better.

Then he got upset and started introducing superfluous spaces into articles just to provoke me. If you look at his contributions you'll see him actually sending messages to me by making tiny edits to specific articles so that their names in his contribution list would spell out a message. Now normally I wouldn't bother reverting an extra space here or there. It's not as if it makes a difference in the final article, which is rendered in a proportional font that ignores extra whitespace. The next person who wants to make a real edit to the page can tighten it up. But when the edit was made for the express purpose of attacking someone, and when it does in fact make the article worse, even by a tiny amount, I think it's vandalism that can be reverted on sight. Indeed RebCoh's series of micro-edits can be seen as constituting a distributed personal attack, which can be removed on sight. Generally, though, I found something to improve in each of those articles, rather than just reverting his spaces.

As for the "Apostrophe hater!" piece, I actually found that genuinely funny and creative, if only a little bit. Which is why my response to that was to suggest that he might like to try his talents at Uncyclopedia. That was not a facetious suggestion, it was meant sincerely. The piece may not be award-winning funny, but nor are most contributions to Uncy, and it would not be out of place there at all. And perhaps RebCoh would enjoy editing there, and would be appreciated for his contributions. -- Zsero (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion required: Moviestar.ie

Hi FT2, I got your details from Alison's helpful people page. I was wondering if you could have a look at this deletion review, and give some feedback. I just want to get anothet opinion or 2 before the case is closed. In my opinion, the article meets #2 of the web notability criteria, in that the site in question has received a well-known and independent award. 1-555-confide (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope

I do hope that last tweak wasn't a reaction to my statement. Relata refero (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't in response to any reply; I routinely tweak my own edits a lot though. I think the communal estimate is that about 50-60% of my edits are "tweaks". Preview doesn't seem to help me much, and for a startement like that capturing it is rarely a "first time perfect" process. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

MM arbitration question

Hi FT2. Just letting you know I would be interested in your comment on the following: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed_decision#Question_re_effect_of_MM_and_SH_on_community_reactions_to_WB. Thanks. BCST2001 (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well?

As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat ^chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wondering about potential Mikka case

Hi FT2, I read your extra comments, and I was wondering if you, or anyone from Arbcom that you know of, might be pursuing my suggestion with respect to resolving this, for now, as painlessly as possible? I think Mikka might be willing to consider it, as he did not reject the idea when I posted at his talk page. I think if it were done this way, there is a possibility this might blow over. And while I agree that Mikka should not be an admin (in his current frame of mind) an arbcom case will most assuredly lead to the loss of this editor. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi FT2, thanks for your reply. I've sent Mikka an email. R. Baley (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad (expression)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article My bad (expression), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka

Hi FT2. Thank you for your note. I am only informing users who have contributed to this discussion (and have generally participated to the accusations) that actually the accusations were false and the story of the 3 letters a fabrication by Elonka. It is not "spamming", but only giving legitimate information to concerned contributors, and this is done in self-defense. These is absolutely no reason why I should let myself slandered by users who forge false stories to push they point. Regards. PHG (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have been steneously attacked by Elonka and a few other users with the claim that I misrepresented things, specifically that there were multiple Viam agnoscere veritatis letter instead of the one I created the article about [15]. Sounds like a rather ridiculous argument, but they tried to make a big deal of it. Elonka's claim however turned out to be a fabrication: she made up that there were three such named letters. Apparently nobody in the litterature gives the same name to these three letters: her claim is totally original research. It is normal that I inform participants of this fact. I will also ask them to remove these unfair accusations against me on the RfA. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly protest any accusation that I am "fabricating" claims. Beyond that, I won't get into it here at FT2's talkpage, but details are available at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis, as well as the current ArbCom case. --Elonka 07:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of My bad (expression)

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

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You have mail

Hi, FT2. Sorry to go on at you, I'm sure you're busy, but have you changed your mind about my request? If you remember, you told me on IRC that you'd send me the full info (the logs? not sure what form it's in) about the en-admins discussion that recently took place on that channel. Also, are my e-mails not reaching you ? I've sent you two mails without any response. I've used both the wikipedia "e-mail this user" function, and your address under which you contacted me in December. I'd really appreciate a reply, on this page, on IRC, or by e-mail. Regards, Bishonen | talk 22:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC).

No change of mind. As you'll see, Ive been considerably busy on this area today, and didn't want to send you stuiff till I was clear what was on-wiki and might be duplicated, and what links would help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RFAR refile

If Maxim's RFAR on BCB is rejected, would it prejudice me to filing the RFAR I was in the middle of drafting? MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends what it was about. If its BCBot related maybe add it in and such? If there is any valid case around BCBot then no point having partial info and two discussions. If its something else than I have no idea till I know what it's about :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Its basically the same as Maxims, but with diffs to support and what not, which are taking me time to gather. I can probably pull an all-nighter and get it together, but I'd rather have time for other editors to fill in things I miss. Thanks though. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sum up what you have, give a few examples, you'd need to have enough to say, or show, to evidence against the view that it's doing a tough job correctly, I think is the point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok did the best I can. My case might be slightly different than Maxims in that it addresses all of BC's behavior instead of just BCB, but thats probably just a matter of interpretation. As with my last RFAR comment, I will elaborate is the decision to accept hinges on what I'm saying. MBisanz ^talk 06:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done something similar, with less diffs, and focusing more on the way the disputes seem to have overwhelmed and impeded surrounding discussions. I hope this helps you decide on whether the case needs to be accepted or not, or on what to say in any rejection comment. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You mention advice given to Betacommand in December. Was this private advice, on-wiki, on a mailing list? If you could provide details (ie. what the advice was and what was not acted on), that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Betacommand asked privately what I thought on a couple of matters. As part of that, I suggested essentially that he separate himself from the bot by acting as bot creator and manager, but letting others handle the communication and response aspects that appear not to be his forte. It does enough edits that this would make sense. Secondly, that he renames it (eg FairUseBot) so that it doesn't get treated as him, personally, but again, allows a more neutral view to be taken by those it posts messages to. It was a comment only, with no obligation or situation requiring its update, and no idea what he made of it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My view on what was eventually created, User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot, is that the name is actually slightly misleading, in the sense that there are many ways for bots to enforce NFCC compliance, and the impression shouldn't be given that this bot does all of them. It in fact only applies one test that finds a subset of those images that fail NFCC#10c. It is silent on the images that fail other NFCC and it is silent on the images that name the articles they are used in (eg. in the description) but still lack a rationale. These are actually important points that shouldn't be glossed over, as they cause a lot of misunderstanding. I will also note that the name was borrowed from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance (my proposal on all this), as confirmed by User:MZMcBride, but my concerns about the name of the bot have, depressingly, been making little headway. Seeing that the proposal for that bot used the name "FairUseBot", I presume that it was inspired (however much later) by your initial suggestions, if indeed you were the first to suggest FairUseBot as a name for the new bot. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm heading out for the day now. I hope my statement is clear. it is rather long, but I'd appreciate it if you (or others) could address any concerns others raise about length, as obviously I'd like my statement to stay there in some form or other. Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea if it was the source. It was an obvious enough suggestion that many people might have thought of it too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2, I looked at the summary you have provided of the issues raised in the BC / BCB RfAr, and it appears to me that there is another area that has been raised that you have not listed. That relates to the actions / behaviour of others and the result of these actions on consensus and collaboration. The page protection of the discussion of the new bot is one example. Crcharoth has raised several issues that have been swamped in other fora due (it sounds) to wagon-circling around BC. I was wondering whether you thought the points raised in this area would be worth noting at this point, as the behaviour of others is usually supposed to be part of the ArbCom-remit, I thought. Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. It's not really amenable to arbcom decisions - ie. Arbcom can't tell the community to stop discussing one issue and to discuss another one instead. But it would be nice if FT2's summary did eventually include the points I made under "Distraction from needed work and discussion on non-free images". It is important for en-Wikipedia, as a community, to decide what to do after the deadline arrives, and not have a few dedicated anti-fair-use people push through their agenda. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That for me falls under (8), which would cover any issues or allegations in which ownership, lack of listening, failure to properly consult, insularity, enforcement of a fixed viewpoint, and the like would fall. Just to clarify. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2, I'm glad that you felt it was covered somewhere, but I'm not sure that it is BAG issue. The circling around BC seems to me to be more than just a couple of users. I don't know if they are all in BAG or not, but either way, for those looking on it might be better to separate the actions of others. Looking at the present AN/I discussion, there appear to be serious BAG questions - if approval really only needs one BAG member and isn't reviewable / appealable to anyone, doesn't ArbCom become the inevitable review body? However, these issues are separate from misuse of admin tools and tendentious discussions that obscure the important issues. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On a separate issue completely, does ArbCom have the authority to overturn a community-imposed ban? I recognise that a community banned editor can appeal that ban and any imposed block can be undone by an admin (and ArbCom members could act individually in such a capacity), but if no admin was willing to act and a case came up to ArbCom, does ArbCom have the authority to overrule the community on such an issue? Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• FT2, I think you are misunderstanding what I'm talking about (or I'm misunderstanding you). When I say you didn't mention the points I raised under "Distraction from needed work and discussion on non-free images" in your summary, and you reply "it is covered under number 8", there is a disconnect there. I am talking about high-level community discussions about non-free image policy and how it should be implemented and what the WMF deadline means and how it impacts on en-Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with WP:BAG, which is what your "number 8" seems to be about. BAG is actually quite a small group and has only been involved recently. There is a large community swirling around the Betacommand issues, and that community is getting the impression that the Betacommand issues are the important ones. I'm saying there are other issues (nothing to do with current bots or Betacommand) that need to be discussed, and that the behaviour of those discussing Betacommand is producing a forest fire that is causing the other issues to be neglected. Does that make things any clearer? If not, please re-read my section "Distraction from needed work and discussion on non-free images", and follow some or all of the links, as that may make things clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick answers: Jay Jay - yes. For one thing, arbcom members are administrators, so by definition if arbcom felt it right to reverse a community ban, it would automatically imply at least one (and probably several) administrators were willing to unban a person. Note that arbcom and the community in general, try to respect each other enough not to act rashly. At least, that's the theory. (In rough terms, we try and catch errors or less good judgements, not override good judgements, so to speak.) And Carcharoth - thanks, yes, actually it wasn't explained so as I understood that point you intended. Now understood. Thank you for the repeat! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I sure you'll re-read the RFAR at some point, but I wanted to point out that a new part of my statement among the clutter, addressing developments subsequent to the RFAR filing: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Additional_statement_by_MBisanz. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Hi, you recall our little talk some 2 or 3 weeks ago, you told me you'd get back to me some 'few days later'. Well I am still waiting. The arbitration case on episodes and characters is about to be closed so I am a bit on the edge. -- Cat ^chi? 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You got mail ...

... I hope. thx --Logograph (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip Buble

I assume you created this. Are you aware it's been deleted? I'm considering DRV, because most voters cited BLP and notability, which I don't believe is valid. Buble is, IMO, notable because he claims to be the first publically out zoophile, and because the court decided that assaults motivated by the victim's zoophilia can be classed as hate crimes. The article could be expanded to mention Buble's testimony before the Legislature's Criminal Justice Committee.[16] Privacy shouldn't be a concern, because he clearly wishes to be a public figure. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it came up at DRV I would possibly support, based on a re-review of the evidence of notability, which I haven't looked at since 2005. And no, your assumption is in error. I have edited heavily in this area, and probably will again some time, possibly if the mood takes me later this year, but this was not an article I was much involved with, neither as creator nor as a main author. It was written by Quiensabe in February 2005, was heavily edited for some time by various users, and I came across it over 8 months later. My involvement was brief (05:58 - 06:16 on October 17 2005, a total of 18 minutes) comprising a minor copyedit (article stated 8 year sentence for his assailant, but had omitted this was reduced to 9 months and suspended), and checking and adding information on the legal significance, since the legal aspect seemed to be the case's main claim to notability and I also edit a fair number of law-related topics.

This was close to three years of editing ago; I would want to review to see if with extra time and experience, I still feel this case was notable or not. I also note that a strong consensus feels it was not, hence obviously the cited evidence was insufficient, or does not exist.

Thanks for letting me know though, and if you do DRV it, let me know, I'll do some looking up on it for the DRV. No promises how it'll look or what exactly'll turn up (if anything) though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Japan-Korea

Hello FT, it seems we need special Macedonia-like sanctions for all Korea-Japan topics, the disruption isn't going away. Please see my post here [17], where I was (heretically, I know) proposing to just install these sidestepping you guys, but then I thought you might want to have a say in it. If you want to keep this under Arbcom responsibility, could we have some kind of speedy process? I don't think there's much likelihood that a classic evidence-workshop etc procedure at this point would come up with anything concrete enough to result in individual sanctions that we couldn't just as well do on the admin level, and frankly speaking I don't have time enough to do much of the evidence stuff (and doubt other neutral observers will). It would only be a mess and not worth it. Let's just go Srbija do Tokija and extend WP:ARBMAC-style rules to Korea/Japan. Or, if you prefer, you could package it as a widening of the existing Liancourt Rocks probation. We particularly need to have wide discretionary power to deal speedily with suspected meat- and sockpuppets. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amazonfire, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opoona, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Saintjust‎, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AirFrance358. Disputes range from Korean and Japanese influences on food to allegations of state-sponsored prostitution. Allegations that Japanese editors collude on 2channel. Thatcher 11:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree on the need for some sort of general sanction. Why not propose this at WP:AN? That way you only need to take it to arbitration if some administrator objects. There is some sort of Mortal Combat going on here, and it needs to be stopped.Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Jehochman. AN or ANI. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine with me. I agree the community ought to be able to impose such solutions themselves. Just wanted to avoid the impression I was deliberately ignoring you guys :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG Arbcom

Hi FT2. I would like to share with you some updates about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [18]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [19]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support [20]. Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. Regards PHG (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be well assured that we check out things ourselves at Arbitration. In the current Mantanmoreland case, I downloaded some 5 - 10 GB of data. In this case, sources are being consulted directly and actual evidence of on-wiki conduct is being checked. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United States journalism scandals

I have nominated United States journalism scandals, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (2nd nomination). 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. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - commented. This was a cleanup fork that the original requestors did not act on. It could probably survive as a list, but not as a sprawl. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of United States journalism scandals

I followed your advice in the AfD regarding a "List of United States journalism scandals" page. Rather than rename, I chose to prepare a new simpler list using the original as a base, and propose a 'merge' to it. When I finished creating it I went ahead and redirected to it - what do you think? Both Talks have remained almost barren - most people passing through the AfD didn't bother Watching it seems! Since the AfD, 16 'non-scandals' have been deleted - 12 by borock, a deletion supporter (which are detailed in the old Talk page here), and 4 by me (detailed in the new Talk page here). I put a lot of work into creating decent titles, and making the Wiki-links go to the right places (and sometimes even placing the information into those places). I do think it is best to only use Wiki-links here - strong main articles really are the priority on Wikipedia imo.

The only other contributor since the AfD (aside from myself and Borock) may reverse the merge - but I followed the "be bold advice" on the merge help page, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. All he's done lately is delete a scandal (which, as it happens, I had decided to keep on the new list) - I'm not sure if he'll fight it or not. As I had no original 'interest' in this topic, I sincerely hope not - and I hope it's clear I've done this solely to improve Wikipedia. I was honestly scandalised by the list as it was, and felt I just had to help change it. Endless content forks rendering Wikipedia unmanageable is something that genuinely scares me! I eventually joined Wikipedia out of fear of what I feel it can do to society.

Many of my misgivings I expressed at the AfD do still remain - guideline-related suitability is probably not an issue now, but forking still exists to a smaller degree, and "scandal" subjectivity and the potentially limitless length are still both serious issues, imo. I would still delete it even now - though I've accpeted the AfD, and the advice of yourself and the AfD's decision-maker, Fram.

Do you have any further recommendations or comments? I have suggested a table format in Talk - though I'm not sure if tables are ever used for lists. Also, do you think it's worth placing all the discussion in all the previous Talk pages in a set of archives? (ie all of its history in one place - not that there's a great deal to compile!). --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying all the related discussion into new archives. I'll cut-and-paste specific sections from the original Journalistic scandal Talk, and page-archive the original list's Talk, redirecting to it from the new archive page. I'll name the new archives so it's all transparent enough.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, List of United States journalism scandals has been put up for AfD. It might seem that I've been pushy in how I'm created it, but I've been working with only 2 other active people: one person for, and one person against - and nothing would have happened if I didn't act as I did. Perhaps you could comment in the new AfD. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions relating to MM decision

FT2, I was hoping that you would look at / consider the suggestions I made at the MM proposed decision's talk page. At least, I thought that you would likely agree with my first suggestion regarding adding a note to the Allegations finding of fact. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted - thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note your proposal of 3.2, and your move to oppose the maddeningly non-specific initial version, which has left me feeling as if I've actually been listened to. I have no idea what prompted you to propose it, but I do like the feeling that there are still some ArbCom members trying to respond to the community disquiet. Thank you. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, the fact that two arbitrators voted to close after your proposal was posted, and that it still has no comment, is disappointing. The fact that one of them is Newyorkbrad, for whom I have great respect, somehow makes it worse. I guess I shouldn't have got my hopes up that any movement towards a result more in line with community concerns would actually occur.  :( Jay*Jay (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Make no mistake, the facts of the case are known. What is under discussion is what recital to give them. I take the view that it often helps to identify things that are known about, and to specifically name and say them. Especially if there are grudges on both sides (so to speak) or a tangle. I've found this helps a lot on other heated disputes too. A lot of the time, the main thing people want is to know they were heard and fairly listened to. A fair rationale why it was taken one way or another is very often respected even if not what was sought.... if it is clearly visible that there was a reason. The above edits were purely in light of the fact that a detailed recital of facts does evidently have considerable support, but drafting concerns existed that could be addressed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Email

You have an email with some further thoughts from me. SirFozzie (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicely said

This was well said. It is one of those guiding statements that I might use in future if I ever find myself producing too much heat and not enough light. I particularly liked "Those who clamored endlessly here, are not, as they might imagine, heroes or wiki-vigilantes. They actually got in the way and disrupted, and in my own opinion, over reacted badly. They showed a gross misunderstanding of the very basics. We are an encyclopedia... and we do not act as was done." Having said that, although arbitration cases can be very involving, passionate and detailed statements will always, hopefully have a place, while still not crossing the line into haranguing the arbitration committee. As a matter of personal interest, in the IRC and MatthewHoffman cases did you think that anyone (me included) crossed that line? Obviously you don't need to name others, but I don't mind if you point out any of my actions during those cases, as I find that invisible line between Arbcom and the community an interesting one. Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree to an extent with Carcharoth, though I stress the following is obviously merely my opinion and you are more than welcome to reject it. While your comment is thoughtful, and while I agree with much of the sentiment, I think the tone was quite a bit off the mark and does not really help matters. In a comment which called out those who "damn or accuse anyone who dares thinks otherwise" you did a fair amount of damning and accusing. And while chastening some for arguing from emotion (an implicit dig since it suggests they are not using reason) you yourself used language bubbling from underneath with emotion.

Unfortunately when casting aspersions on certain editors in this fashion you did so vaguely, alluding to what could be three users or thirty. I might be one of those users you had a problem with or I might not. How would I know, how would anyone? I think that, given the lack of specificity, your comments could have a bit of a chilling effect. Though I'm sure it's not what you intended, there is a clear subtext of "please watch what you say and how you say it" directed at no one in particular. I do not find that helpful coming on the heels of this case and in the midst of the current discussion.

Your tone also gave the impression, and I'm sure this was also not your intention, of one speaking from on high to those who do not understand. Again speaking only for myself, that did not go over very well.

The reality is that we seem to be at an impasse with this case, but that's okay. Much has been written, much has been discussed, and intelligent, reasonable people who are committed to the project still disagree. Your view is that the committee did well and that segments of the community have behaved badly in this case. Others believe that the community did fairly well and that the ArbCom did a poor job in this case. Both are valid views and they don't seem on the verge of being reconciled with one another. I am no more convinced by your comment linked above than you will probably be by my comment here. There's nothing wrong with that.

By way of an inadequate and slightly unfair summary I'll say this. From my perspective your entire comment could plausibly be shorthanded (although it of course does some significant violence to what you are saying) as "There's been way too much yelling and arguing on this case and it should end now, but I hasten to add that our view is the correct one." I see a bit of an unconscious attempt to have your cake and eat it too, but again this is just my reaction so you can take it or leave it as you choose. It's also entirely possible if not likely that my comment here and things I said earlier in the case are open to these same kind of criticisms.

This was difficult to put into words and I probably did not say it right, but I did want to say something.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You must have said something right because I agree with you as well. Can you both be right? :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Commented. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Over-advocating"?

Two issues:

1. I've never heard of "over-advocating" before. Please explain your thinking on the difference between that and simply aggressively pursuing what one believes is right.
2. If over-advocating breaches some policy, that would cause an explicit threat of an indef ban, could you point to that policy.

Thanks in advance, Bellwether ^B_C 20:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Over advocating" is a term that I've used, that I think will be generally understood. In general, Wikipedia works by a delicate, largely unwritten style of communication. There are written lines in confirmed problem areas of communication - civility, attacks, harassment, and so on - but those merely delineate "pretty much completely unacceptable" matters. Even without breaching those, there are also positive principles of our community too, again often unspoken, covering useful and unhelpful behaviors. For example, Wikipedia runs by WP:CONSENSUS, which we can sum up some of in writing, but an aspect of which is that there is a balance where you are free to strongly say what seems right to you, but at the same time, not "be a dick" about it (to use the common wiki-term, and not describing any specific matter that way). A judgement when to not push to a point that fair advocacy of a personally held position, drifts into the area of attacks, or disruption, or point proving, or wilfully ignoring that the point's been heard and not gained agreement. One might still disagree, strongly perhaps, but nobody here wins every argument - I don't, nobody does. So accepting that even a strongly held view is not winning favor, is important as a core part of consensus seeking.

The corollary of that is, a user who holds a position so strongly that they generate disruption or an unspoken general sense they're probably getting too invested in a matter and hence not acting in a balanced fair way about it, is what I term "over advocating". They aren't just saying a position, or saying one strongly, or disagreeing, but they are risking going beyond that to the point it becomes disruptive, point making (especially refusal to get the message), or simply inability or refusal to balance personal stances on one hand, with working within a consensus-seeking community on the other, or (in some cases) acting as if others differing can't be handled. Its a point you start to say "however strongly you believe that, its time to have a cup of tea (WP:TEA), not be a fanatic (WP:DBF), drop the stick (WP:STICK)", or whichever well known essay you prefer for the matter.

This is a term for a concept, not really a term defined in a policy or written source, or one to be over analyzed or 'lawyered, or used with hostility or any such. It's a description of a concern that cannot be uncommon, that someone's seeming a bit over invested (or over emotional) in a situation, to the point their approach is advocative beyond helpfulness. You want them to calm down a bit, depersonalize maybe, look at how others see it and whether they agree or not with others, recognize that their current slightly over focussed, over advocative approach is a bit counterproductive, and amend it while its easy, and before they manage to put any people's backs up by their manner (as, say, opposed to their views).

Hope that helps. Ask if you need more? Rough only, and Im sure it can be picked at; like most things its trying to describe a matter that's not entirely words-capturable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the larger problem, in my view. An arbitrator who accuses a party to a case of the rather nebulous WikiSin of "over-advocating" would seem to have a chilling effect on at least that party, and more likely any parties who see the accusation. I know I won't be posting further to that case, even though I consider it an important issue, well-worthy of the arbcom's attention. Regards, Bellwether ^B_C 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RfAR request re Mackan79/SlimVirgin/Anticipation of...

I was reading your comment, and noted the following line: "Somewhere in all this Mackan positively identified himself to a checkuser (name, corporation, phone number, city), and was fully verified not to be the person in question." Perhaps you might consider rewording to "...was fully verified to be who he stated he was, and not the person whose sockpuppet he was alleged to be." As the sentence reads now, it raises questions about whether he is who he claimed. Thanks. Risker (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - sure :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

GWH/Mackan question

You said in your decline that the AC and four CUs mailed George to say it was unlikely, but then he blocked anyway and stood by it? I'm just trying to understand the timeline. Lawrence § t/e 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That did, thanks. That whole blocking just had me boggled, along with that one point. At least its over... Lawrence § t/e 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Following up on Mantanmoreland decision

Just to let you know that I have recently received an expression of interest to work on the involved articles from Greg Comlish and have provided him with some background.[21] I have also left a message on Newyorkbrad's talk page, as he was the primary author of this decision. Risker (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Message forwarded. Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 arbitration

I like your thoughts (18:07, 18 March) on 9/11 conspiracy theories arbitration. I will look into the cases you refer to, and see if they give me new ideas for consensus building. Now, night is falling in Holland; I'll get back on this another time...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Don Murphy

Hi FT2,

I think you may have misplaced a response you made on the Don Murphy DRV underneath my comment (diff). I tend to agree with you on just about everything, and I think we're in agreement here as well. Please take a look when you have a minute.

Best,
— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Working group question

Hi. i have a small question. is there any way to still apply to be involved in any way with WP:WGR? I have a few ideas which i would like to gradually offer. I didn't know about this group until just now. I was told by a person there to try getting in touch with you. sorry to bother you. appreciate any help. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:AN

(Re [22])

Have you read my posts there? I wonder why you have not addressed the following points 1) Irpen's bad faith and possible stalking of m person 2) my content creation = greater good argument 3) why Halibutt and anon were blocked for edit warring, but not M.K? PS. Still waiting for your reply on the workgroup issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2, thanks for your analysis. It is deep and thoughful even though there are things on which I would like to comment. Very busy now and will post later in detail (at AN perhaps). For now, just one thing. I never ever stalk Piotrus having not clicked on his contribs for over a year at least (to minimize the stress from what I would see) . I stated that multiple times elsewhere [23] and Piotrus knows where I said it. He accused me, despite my assertions, repeatedly and even demanded proofs on how else I ran into his articles.[24] The explanations were always given. At the same time, I cannot post to any board or talk page without his attention, even obscure technical deletion debates or posting to talks of people he never interacted with or images outside of his interest to not get commented upon by Piotrus or not get a diff added to his diff-dump[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] he still maintains to this day.[30] [31] I will bring in diffs on the matter separately.

Content issue Piotrus brings is a crucial one indeed and he has some points in it but no in how he implies. I will post later and in greater detail.

My main concern here is not sanctioning Piotrus for the 3RR violation (that is quickly getting historic rather than current) or anything. I am concerned about underground games, system failure, admin conduct, IRC misuse through forum shopping and badmouthing contributors.--Irpen 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. FT2's page is on my watchlist (in case of stalking strawman is brought up for the n+1st time.)

Of course it is on your watchlist; as is every page where you suddenly appear out of thin air joining a conversation that does not involve you and offer your insight on my behavior (example, I am sure watchlisted as well). Do tell which watchlisted page brought you to AN - after all the unblock was discussed only on IRC, as you've noted yourself... And of course you repeat for the n-th time the same accusations you brought before ArbCom - after all, even if the ArbCom ignored them that time, and chose to warn you and not me, if they are repeated often enough editors should finally understand how evil I am. Shrug. I have said all I wanted in this case, and I can only hope FT2 will decided to carry out a throughout analysis of the issues I've indicated above one of those days. PS. As far as I am concerned, my unblock, which allowed me to create content, is a proof that the system still works, valuing creation of encyclopedic content over wikilawyering. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of narrow comments.

1. Yes, Ioeth's page was watchlisted by me because he was the admin aggressively lured by some into blocking of the content opponents. The recently abused method of "resolving disputes" through luring the "uninvovled" admins into blocking starts first with winning the admin's sympathy followed by convincing who to block. The most obvious tool of this kind is establishing the direct communication channel with the admin. Such communication usually starts with praise of the admin's "objectiveness" and then gets into craftily worded complaints aimed at presenting an opponent as a trouble-maker. Wikipedia-space also has some boards that are very easy to use that way. Last year the community (despite your protestations) got rid of three such fields, the PAIN, the CS and the RFI boards, that were most prone to such abuse. This activity has now moved to the AE board. But talk page and, better yet emails, and IRC work best.
2. I learned about your block from your talk page and learned about the unblock from WP:AN3.
3. Your repeated invocation of the ArbCom's "finding" achieved through your unloading the stuff from your secret diff-dump has been ridiculed or called a grave error multiple times by many prominent editors, including at least three arbitrators (I don't know how many more did so off-record) and, at least, 3 admins of highest standing. You can go 'round posting it again all you want. As I said, I have nothing to fear or nothing to hide. I don't gossip off-line, I don't stalk you (or anyone) and I don't look for diffs on anyone (including you) to store. I wish you could say the same as well.
4. I brought up this incident not because you were unblocked (I don't care) but because your off-line methods of work again came out. Whatever diffs you currently have maintained in your dump, the very fact that you maintain such a dump is by itself far more disreputable than anything I could ever have said.

And I don't repeat "accusations". Your diff-dump is a fact. Its accidental discovery by me was a deep shock and when you tell me that you ceased maintaining it and promise to stop gossiping about me behind my back, I will happily offer you (or accept) an olive brunch at that very moment. I am not happy with this relationship. I just don't want anymore backroom stuff. Your non-apology apology [32] discussed in the thread with Balcer offered no such assurances. You also refused to denounce it in our later exchanges.[33] [34]

I will write up an analysis of FT2's analysis (with diffs) at the AN. An advance hint I can give is that I agree with your emphasis on the content creators and even with the notion that they may be entitled into getting some slack (though very little.) --Irpen 02:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As for off record comments by prominent admins and arbcom members I heard some which supported me and criticized you, but I guess we all like to hear (and are told) what we want to hear. Regarding my "diff dump" I still maintain that any editor has the right to collect any information they want to - freedom of speech, open source, yadda-yadda, we went over this, ArbCom ignored your proposals to condemn it, off-record is off-record, so I see it as closed case until it is formally reviewed again. I never discuss you with others - I have more interesting things to discuss - unless your actions are relevant to mine (read: when you jump into a Piotrus-related issue that's irrelevant to you and start dragging my name through various foras and I have to explain to bystanders the reason for it). I'd be more than happy to never have to do it again - alas, it's not me who starts those discussions (did I post at ANI about you? Did you about me? CET). And go ahead, write analysis of analysis - it's your time - I will in the meantime write some encyclopedic content :) Seriously, if half of the time people put in pointless wikilawyering discussions went into content creation, this project would have 5, not 2,5, millions of articles (I can cite an academic study that found Wikipedia namespace is the highest growing namespace in size and number). And gosh, some people still defend Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy. LOL... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have reviewed your analysis and agree with most of it, although I do question the assumption that I did not sufficiently review the actions of other editors or sufficiently act upon the outcome of that review. I have added my comments to your analysis. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A week later

You asked at my talk page to inform you when this happens next time. It did. There are many more issues I would like to post on, including the unrelated to this stuff. So, more coming but this is the continuation of older drama. --Irpen 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is not pure and simple stalking of my by Irpen - how on earth is my request to review Lokyz behavior relevant to him - I don't know. I am considering filling an ArbCom asking for the review of his behavior towards me, and introduction of the once discussed "restraining order" - i.e. preventing Irpen from following me and commenting on my edits. Your comments would be appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Exxolon

Can you please review the above - looks like they were caught in a rangeblock following a checkuser, but I'm not sure if it's clear to unblock them. Thanks. _GB^T/C 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Trip_to_Sunderland#Unblock

Please can you review this unblock request? It concerns a range you Hardblocked yesterday. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

N/M it's been taken care of. Mangojuice^talk 02:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For your consideration

As requested.

[35] He questions others comments with bad faith assumptions. When clearly it's being pointed out here that those of us who work with images and suffer lapses of civility do not do so for no reason. It gives context in that we are often approached in an uncivil fashion.

[36] Unreasonable request with no evidence of why the current system is inadequate. This is, of course, a discussion that has taken place, at length, previous to this case. He also misrepresents me in this statement.

[37] Many others had left brief comments of support when I added mine, yet he only questions me, and in great length, requesting I clarify why I view BCB's contributions as invaluable. In his initial comment to this finding of fact or principle, he insults Betacommand and shows an overall assumption of bad faith.

[38] Once he's given evidence, as he requested, rather than accept it, he attacks the admin who presented it for not acting on it.

[39] Here he is on my case for responding to one of his comments where he details the specifics of BetacommandBot's enforcement of NFCC 10c. In his comment he devalues the Bot's work because it only checks for compliance with this one part of the policy. Then he says that I an another are criticizing him for simply stating what the bot does, and claims it examples how the bot is immune to any and all comment. Which is clearly not the case.

[40] Then he accuses me of giving a strawman argument.

[41] I'm not sure why, but he decided to drop this in reply to me disproving his argument that Beta has never shown civility when responding to requests. My example also showed his OptOut in use.

[42] Here he opposes for reasons not even in the text. It's not even close. Speedy deletion criteria is not even mentioned. His opposition in no way applies to what he's responding to.

[43] Arguing with me over my wording, attempting to force me into his POV.

[44] What I view as an unconstructive reply to Beta followed by an attempted summary of his proposed principle that I believe many find to be so poorly worded it's unclear what he's attempting to convey.

[45] He misrepresents my words.

He's making good contributions to the case, but it would be nice if someone could request that he fully read and understand proposals before commenting on them, to more clearly word his own proposals rather than get into lengthy, pointless arguments with those attempting to understand them, and I don't think he's harassing me, but I don't see a need in him questioning only my support in a widely supported principle, and at such unnecessary length. Regards, Lara❤Love 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to do the right thing...

...and give you a chance to explain why you failed to respond to the notice regarding me above. If you're going to hand out hard rangeblocks the least you can do is monitor your own talkpage to see if there are any innocent victims. You were notified at 0642 and subsequently edited for two hours later the same day and failed to address the issue. I eventually had to go to IRC to get this sorted. Exxolon (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Some explanation's already at ANI, so the specific answers extra I'll put here.

This was a highly problematic vandal block. Enough so that although experienced, I wanted to consult, myself, what was best (which I did). I also considered the problem sufficiently difficult to want to research, write up, and post a request for a fix to help your kind of situation at 8.42 [46], after my existing work on Piotrus/Tigershark. With that extra thrown in, I was pushed on time to fit it all in, so I didnt check my talkpage for the 2 hours I had to do all this. 2 hours isn't a long time to set aside new queries and focus on existing problems. Instead I checked it later. By that time I'd already long since been contacted on IRC, been informed, and said go ahead and reverse it, which I gather was done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. Sorry if I came off a bit OTT - if I have a failing it's I have a ferocious temper and sometimes let that get the better of me. You've been far more polite than I deserve :) Exxolon (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Truth is, this guy had so many blocks on so many IPs its not true. I was just hoping that somehow the one or two genuine editors in all that range might not use it a while, like a day or 2, till I could get ideas if anything more could be done. Hence the unblock directions, in case it didnt work that way. Hopefully "something will be done" I gather. Not in my hands, thats a dev decision. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please correct

Hi FT2. With all due respect, you accused me of making personal attacks (on my Talk Page), when all I was doing was qualifying content ("Blatant untruth", corrected to "Obvious untruth"). You based this accusation on a falty reading of this exchange [47]. Could you kindly correct your accusation (<strike></strike>), so that my record can be cleaned in this respect? Regards. PHG (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you help?

Hi FT2. My 200k archives for the Franco-Mongol alliance were deleted (User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)). Instead, I would like to insert a small link "Long version here", so that people who access that page can still consult the older and longer version refered to from many Talk Pages [48]. I did it once, and although I am free to create personal User pages, I was attacked steneously for "recreating deleted content" (here). The accusation is untrue, as I did not recreate the 200k content at all, but, rather, inserted the small link described above. Since I am apparently under threat if I do it by myself, could you kindly put the link in the blanked page for me? Thank you for your understanding. PHG (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than undeleting the page, a better solution would be to simply update any existing links, to point to that diff instead of to the subpage. However, I have reviewed everything in the "What links here" list, and honestly couldn't find anything that really needed to be updated. In most cases where the link to the subpage appears, that diff is either already right next to it, or it's pretty obvious in context that if anyone really wants to see PHG's old version, they can just click on the History tab at Franco-Mongol alliance to see an older version of the page. If I've missed anything, let me know? --Elonka 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oddly I had already dealt with it before the above message.

What I have done, PHG, is, I looked at the pages linking to the deleted page. There were about 10 of them. Most were arbitration and MFD related pages (WP:RFAR and sub-pages, WP:AE and WP:MFD). These need no update - anyone checking the historic reason for a deletion (if anyone does) is likely to be looking at the deleted page from an admin perspective, not a content perspective, and these kind of pages often link to deleted material so it's not unusual at all. A second set of links are on users talk pages, oddly enough yours and mine, but 2 others. Again, these users are unlikely to refer back to old notes - I won't, you know where to look, and so on.

The remaining articles I have edited, to add clear links to the historic version, which I've done before when it might help, and glad to do here as well. See the two edits to Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance and Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 5. Those were the only two pages that probably need linking, though if anyone did review the arbitration matters or MFD, or Shell needed to see it, I'd be fine helping them. They'll ask if they need to though, whereas for the article talk archive it's more likely people will want to find the material and not know where to look, so there it counts more.

Thanks for asking. You did well. Glad to help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, GMTA. Thanks FT2, your solution looks reasonable, thanks for the quick work. --Elonka 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Hamish Ross vandal

Unfortunately, your unblock of User:Exxolon seems to have allowed this guy to start operating again. See here. I'm not good at rangeblocks -- anything you can do? NawlinWiki (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My main "something to do" is trying to push WP:IPEXEMPT along a bit - which will cure the problem. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano has questions about access to #admins

Giano has questions about #admins. Can you help him? FloNight♥♥♥ 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment

FT2, as I said before, you have all the rights to block Giano. I guess our opinions on the helpfulness of this block are differ. Lets hope the future will show you are right and I was wrong. My opinion is based on my experience in my corner of the wikiuniverse, but IMHO the main problem of this project is that we do not retain the best and brightest contributors particular those without the admin bit. They are not driven away by the incivility but by the all sizes fit approach there the opinions of an editor who basically created (by himself and by inspiration to other editors) huge sections of the project and who has an invaluable insight on the real-life inner work of the project is set to be equal in validity to any troll or POV-pushing newbie and infinitely less important than an opinion of anybody with higher level of editorial privileges. Some people literally give the project half of their live and talents and could not receive in exchange from people who are the official faces of the project even minimal patience and tolerance. Giano has a huge experience and insight with the ills of the project as well as the energy and desire to fix them. His methods are incovenient but I am not sure he would get the results using normal methods. It would really help to give him an ear and a hand rather than try to shut him up or teach him manners. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Users have tried, for a long time. It is hard to know what to do with someone whom you tell emphatically and repeatedly that "nobody has asked you to change views" and that "having strong views" and "having questions if asked appropriately" are all absolutely okay, and whose response is "do I pretend these things don't happen... or do I say I must... say nothing". It's dramatics. He knows what needs doing. He just doesn't seem to want to. He's had support from me, encouragement from others, to learn this. The views and concerns are fine, the manner of expression via gratuitious backhanded and borderlined incivility has to end. I know he doesn't want it to. But he needs to put himself in others shoes. As he says he despise double standards, so do others. The double standard he wants to invoke is "the community can reach agreement on civil speech regardless of viewpoint"... and he wants the right to opt out and make snarky asides and attacks to people, and assume the worst then attack them for it. I don't know what for. Its so unnecessary. But it's not okay. That's not our agreement here. I don't know how to say it plainer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we compromise and give him the same free pass on incivility that many admins get? —Random832 (contribs) 13:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2, one of the issues here is that it appeared, based on FloNight's remarks in the IRC case, that she was taking ownership of the effort to resolve the outstanding problems with Gerard's IRC. So, Giano rightfully went to her page to ask for an update on her efforts to implement some solutions. Instead, she referred him to you. Now, was anything ever publicly said stating that you were taking charge of the IRC cleanup effort? If not, then Giano was right to keep pressing FloNight for a response instead of accepting the "pass-along run around" that it looked like she was giving him. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A fair point, I've rechecked things. As best I understand it, FloNight suggested what might be done. But anyone can do that, of any problem. I've suggested approaches on case issues where in fact Newyorkbrad has actually done the work completely differently when it happened, and so on. As I understand it, FloNight said that her approach wasn't adopted by others, long ago.

By contrast ⁽¹⁾ I've formally posted on WP:IRC (where it was surely noticed) that changes had been made, where it's very clear I was writing up what went on. ⁽²⁾ On FloNight's page earlier this month I responded to IRC related questions from Irpen, and ⁽³⁾ on WP:IRC I responded to the issue raised there by the same user. A look at the page linked from WP:IRC for the en-admins channel info ⁽⁴⁾ has my name in many posts, and ⁽⁵⁾ Bishonen in the en-admins channel knew (due to a channel message) that I (and not FloNight) was the contact for the current changes there. ⁽⁶⁾ Giano therefore surely knew changes were up (from multiple sources) and that I was involved; he had ⁽⁷⁾ seen FloNights statement that her initative hadn't been adopted, and he had certainly ⁽⁸⁾ read FloNights specific statement (⁽⁹⁾ stated at least twice) that FT2 is [the] best person to contact for information about the #admins channel.

Despite that, his incivility was very evidently unproductive; he ⁽¹⁰⁾ asked questions of us, that included pointless "side of mouth" incivility directed to FloNight -- ie he was not talking to her, but insulting her whilst talking to others she'd referred him to and who had promptly attended -- and thus kept returning to taunt or attack her instead, even when I and others were ⁽¹¹⁾ actually talking to him on it and he'd also ⁽¹²⁾ been told explicitly FloNight is not in any sense a "manager" nor responsible for the user list management and then again (!) ⁽¹³⁾ FloNight doesn't know a specific count. Under these circumstances - yes Giano knew, and was doing exactly what he has done before: borderlining and gaming civility. In this case, including "on the side" attacks on A when talking to B, and doing it wilfully for zero productive purpose.

When a person's been told repeatedly that A doesn't know something, isn't the best person to speak to, wasn't involved in actual changes, had their initiative declined, others took the actual steps, and A has referred them to those others who are now in active dialog clearly trying to help, then A is clearly not the right person. None of which excuses gratuitous incivility :-/ FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in IRC case

I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for permission to quote you

Hi, FT2. Would it be all right if I quoted a few words onwiki from the long e-mail you sent me on 12/29/07 (for context, it was your response to my suggestion that you recuse from the IRC case). Literally a few words—for certain reasons, I'm trying to describe how the case looked to me at the beginning, and I want to be able to put actual quote marks round your words, to show that it's you talking, not me summarizing something you said. Not whole statements or anything like that, just single words and ... let's see... a couple of four-word phrases. OK? Bishonen | talk 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

I've rarely said anything in private I wouldn't ultimately stand by if public. My only concern would be balance and fair impression. Its easy to inadvertantly end up with text that misrepresents, even with the best of intentions, and this is a case with some people perhaps willing or even actively seeking to read whatever can be read into words to fit their specific view on things.

My email contained quite a bit of personal disclosure, and ended, "This is a bit of a ramble covering many points. I'd ask you keep it to yourself, but I would stand by what I say anyway." So the answer is yes, come what may you can quote from it. Up front, and without knowing at all what you want to quote, you can quote me on that email.

That said, a heads-up identifying which are the "few words" would be appreciated if willing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of preventing spacetime from collapsing onto itself, please also try not to b/reach three Elonkoincidences! (i.e. Ek≠FT²) El_C 01:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You have mail

Yes, FT2, I see your point (yours too, Commendante), and have ended up not quoting your e-mail at all. However, you now have mail, with another, MUCH simpler request: a speedy yes or no, here or on IRC, would be greatly appreciated. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

You had a reply before I saw this :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your posts

Please do not ever set foot on my page again. The message is quite clear here [49]. Kindly adhere to it. Giano (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I will try to avoid doing so, except as needed for administrative purposes, and direct responses to comments where I would be the natural respondent (eg, because the comment is directed to or about me, or to or about matters I am the more likely person to respond), or to note misimpressions in existing discussions that may lead to dispute. All avoidance is unlikely to be practical. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making the difficult decisions

First, thank you for welcoming me to your userpage. You have very good manners.I feel as if I have found my home away from home. I digress...

Our mailing lists are abuzz with praise for your challenging yet necessary actions in blocking Giano. His persistant misogyny, which Thatcher pointed out, is of great concern to us. This behavior must not be tolerated. He has run amuck for far too long on our Project, as his block log indicates. I blogged about this debacle here. I nearly quit blogging for good, but your actions inspired me to keep up the good fight. Thank you for defending the Wiki. Godspeed. The Defender of the Wiki (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to accept something like this, I can't. It wasn't done "for" anyone, or for any group, or anything like that. It was done because it needed doing. I wrote WP:DBF back in 2005 and it's still a good recap of things. Giano is a user, not a "challenge" or anything, and blocking is never anything to be celebrated or even done lightly. I wasn't aware of the "female" issue you and Thatcher picked up on, and I could care less on the politicking. An editor was under a remedy to be civil, and wasn't civil, chances got given, normal judgement and action follows, pretty much. That's really all. I don't agree with the strong words and portrayal in your blog (though I respect your right to hold them) and I don't feel Giano deserves all the bad names it states. The blog is more "hyped" on descriptions, than it needs to be, too, which will just encourage anger and escalation. The only aspect that needed thinking about was deciding if the line had been crossed where some formal action was appropriate (as opposed to deferring action) and if his uncivil conduct was harmful to the project, and that was not at all difficult.

The best defense of the wiki (and this applies to Giano as well) is to not provoke division and to step by step cut down on pointless unproductive bad conduct by editors to editors, so that we can all focus on content writing, and genuine content-related matters worthy of attention, more.

My main wish is just that Giano will remember to be civil to others in a way that his gifts and desire to help does not come in parallel with a wish to verbally hurt the efforts and motivation of others too. And -- welcome. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

REDUCED ACCESS FOR A FEW DAYS

I am away for much of this weekend, and have some catching up on-wiki thereafter.

To clear my backlog, I'll be "reduced access" until about midweek, giving me 2-3 days to catch up. Things I'm catching up on:

• BLP subject help work that was disrupted midweek - about 3 different blp areas
• An npov sort-out
• A long report on irc for arbitration
• A bunch of arb work
• ANI/RFC possible concern

(and Irpen - if you need your request followed up still, please let me know. I will if needed. You have an email which I hope you got also.)

Better to be honest about the workload and take a few days to clear it. It's been a bit of a heavy week. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For making outstanding efforts to work with users and alleviate conflicts, as exampled here, I hereby award FT2 the Barnstar of Peace. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyking

I realise this won't come as much of a surprise but I'm again really disappointed about the way Everyking has been treated by the Committee. The last comment on the request for clarification was NYB's that "I have concluded that it will be in the interest of actual and perceived fairness to offer new motions." You had said, "There's a lesson here on "block voting" alternatives which are similar but not identical. I'm happy to do it again more "item by item", simply because although I think it was closed according to intent, it's in a way, better to revote it than to have uncertainty." But no new motions were added, and I've just seen that Thatcher archived the thread as "stale" [50] a few days ago. I don't know what happened to actual and perceived fairness but, when editors in good standing bring up concerns about sanctions on longterm committed contributors, these threads being ignored until they become "stale" is a long way from how I would expect the Committee to behave. WjBscribe 16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Naked Shorts "Domain Expert"

Hi, A while back Risker asked me to read over the naked short selling article and use my domain expertise to improve the article. He suggested at the time that you could act as a resource. Risker made the request a few weeks ago; I've been deliberately taking my time because I saw that this was quite a contentious article.

I have some suggestions for improving the article and I wanted to run them by you. Basically I think what's missing from the Naked Short Selling article is an explanation of the fundamental supply and demand issues at hand: How much can/do legal naked shorts increase supply and decrease demand? How much can/do abusive naked shorts increase supply and decrease demand?

I think if we steer the article more towards answering these questions then we can move away from a "he said, she said" conflict into an academic debate where there are some interesting unresolved questions. I hope that this would satisfy the various factions, but certainly a supply-and-demand focus would make the article much more interesting to economists.

(I could start to answer some of these questions myself, but WP:NOR, know what I mean?)

Let me know what you think about this suggestion. I must admit The articles I typically work on don't attract any controversy at all. I would love to have your assistance in improving this article.

Thanks,

Greg Comlish (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Often what helps is to stand right back and reconsider afresh, reliable sources and such from basics, and ask what an article on the subject might want to cover. Your comments above give some good ideas for that.

Most times you can spot the aftermath of a heavy edit war. two common features of edit warred articles: 1/ the text is a bit polarized and tends towards a "for/against" style when considered carefully, rather than being a characterized balanced overview, and 2/ you often have multiple cites where people tried to back up points against edit warriors by citing 5-10 times. It can also seem too descriptive in some areas (points people wanted to make) and skip others (things neither side focussed on or which were not warred over so much).

In this case for example people were fighting over the NSS controversy and NSS regulatory views; neither side was focussed particularly on NSS history, economic theory, or other aspects for example.

This search may help, it's Google on Naked Shorting, with Wikipedia-related or Wikipedia-derived pages mostly removed. It contains enough sources that would usually be considered reliable or credible, that one could rewrite the NSS article without reference at all to the old one, and that would perhaps be a good way to avoid all explicit or subtle bias, for or against any view or approach.

If you want to set up a working page in your user space for a draft, and see how it goes from there? The last collaborative article I did was Metric expansion of the universe; usually I redraft problematic articles solo, so it'll be good to do one again. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes this was actually my next question: how can I setup a draft in my userspace? Greg Comlish (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly as you would create or open any page you want to. User:Greg Comlish/Naked Short Selling. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2 and the attachment theory

Dear FT2,

I was only reporting what I was told and I am glad you did not feel that your previous involvement precluded you from taking part in this case.

I should like to put the same question to yourself as Luna Santin;-

I have changed the disputed page on Michael Rutter to the original title "Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory" as it was correctly cited in the first place. This is a very important change as it reinforces the fact they are not the same thing ie mothers are not naturally the best carers for small children.

I should be very grateful if you could tell me what I should do if Fainites changes it back again? (Please note this is not a matter of consensus but a simple case of right and wrong).

Would I also be correct in assuming that both you and Luna Santin are women, or neither?

Many thanks,

KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page, User_talk:KingsleyMiller#FT2_and_the_attachment_theory. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

g'day FT2

I recall that we've chatted a little bit on IRC - which I now appear in from time to time having proudly figured out how to use it! - I also noticed that you corrected the 'blpwatch' tag over at Giovanni di Stefano's article - an article I got into hot water editing. I'd love it if it were possible to find a time to have either a 'real world' conversation (perhaps Skype?) - or a textual (IRC or other realtime) chat if you prefer - both about that article in general terms - and if you've got 5 or 10 mins free to review, the three edits mentioned here and here. There's some information I'd like to share, and I'd also love some advice - many thanks in advance if you might find the time! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We've never spoken really, other than your saying hi in a public channel maybe once or twice, and I will admit to a fair lack of familiarity with this article. The Blpwatch tag was placed by others; my interest is as the proposer of BLPWatch with a view that we need an improved way right now, to watch BLP's for their subjects, against repeated issues. So I'm closely involved in its testing. I wish I had the time needed to do everything, but I may not. You're probably best to take it to discussion for that reason, if at all able. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Very difficult being an administrator

The comparison I was making is that Bowlby based his theory of 'maternal deprivation' on the sex of the parent! as you say it would be a terrible World if we could tell what people are really like by the way they look!

Hope this makes a bit of sense.

Thank you for your help with the dispute. This thread has nothing to do with 'attachment therapy' which was discussed some months ago and has nothing to do with me. This is 'attachment theory' a completely different issue.

Only if you have time I should be grateful if you would look at the discussion with Fainties at the bottom of my USER page and give me your thoughts.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to have this sorted out a bit. It's probably best I don't actually review it. I get the impression you are quite concerned about who may or may not get involved, and if I understand your talk page post, you've commented that you feel only people whose gender you are told, are to comment in this issue. I think that's mistaken, but it's more important you feel you have best input. Even if I took the time to read the texts by Bowlby and Rutter and form an impression, it's still probably best I keep out of it and neutral, in case you or fainites or anyone else there, ever needs impartial outside advice on dispute resolution issues on this (rather than the article contents itself). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hamlet_snip.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hamlet_snip.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

I was hoping someone could submit this on the Matt Sanchez Talk page. This information is a suggestion to change information on the blog that is untrue and not sourced:

According to self-published posts on his blog, Sanchez was an embedded blogger from May through July, 2007.[26] He first accompanied an American military unit that traveled from Kuwait into Iraq, then in July 2007 he joined a unit in Afghanistan.[27] Sanchez's blog is occasionally syndicated on WorldNetDaily.[28]

I recommend the following re-write:

Matt Sanchez was embedded in Iraq and Afghanistan as journalist for 8 months. His reports were printed in the National Review, The Weekly Standard, Human Events, before becoming the war correspondent for Worldnetdaily, where he files exclusive dispatches. He also produced the radio programs "In Their Own Words" and "Hometown Heroes." Sanchez has since begun to report on politics and is a re-occuring guest on Kiosque, where Matt, in French, discusses world events with other international journalists.

Source Radio programs

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/matt_sanchez_from_iraq_rinse_a/

War Correspondent and Afghanistan sources

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/19/bill-oreilly-shows-up-in_n_73228.html

War Correspondent/reporter and journalist sources, reporting on politics

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25185

Eight months source: http://michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452:rubs-at-long-last-justice&catid=41:rubs&Itemid=79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.156 (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:'Anonymous' posting on a blog.png

Thanks for uploading Image:'Anonymous' posting on a blog.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Whoops - linked to Anonymous not Anonymous (group)! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration - Requests for clarification

Hi, I know you're very busy, but I'd noticed that you haven't posted anything at the new Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions page. Were you aware of the page split, and is it added to your watchlist? The page could definitely benefit from some more attention, as there are some requests which have been sitting there unattended for quite some time. Thanks, --Elonka 05:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Range blocking the University of Southern California

Have you tried contacting the uni's IT department over this abuse before resorting to range-blocking 128.125.0.0/16 and potentially an entire university? We're going to have an absolute field day at unblock-en-l and CAT:RFU over this once the school week is back in full swing. *sigh*

Could you either reduce it to a {{schoolblock}} (please make a note in the blocking comment that all account requests must be made from an @usc.edu email address) and email the USC's abuse department asking for assistance kicking the sockpuppeteers off their network. In the meantime, how should we respond on User talk:Mundhenk? --  Netsnipe  ►  06:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I'm going to see if there is anyway I can find out why USC isn't taking this seriously. I'm not sure if there is much I can do. I'm just a little guy at a big university. Maybe someone can bring it to the attention of the school paper:

The Daily Trojan

Mundhenk (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've left a message on your talk page. I've also checked again -- I blocked specifically account creation, not account based editing, or anon editing. Just account creation. It shouldn't disrupt editing, but would require use of account creation requests for new accounts. The schoolblock message is inappropriate since it states anon editing is blocked. I'll change the block message; let me know if that fixes it. I've also emailed the school's IT services. Thanks, FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I've responded to your earlier e-mail. Regards, Rudget (review) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - responded! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perplexed!

I think I would like an explanation "on-wiki" please [51]. Thanks Giano (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, FT2, I won't have this message quietly removed like this [52], I received your email, and quite frankly that is not the way Wikipedia can do business. Everything, but the most important has to be upfront, otherwise none of us ever know where we stand. It is my suspicion that checkusers are used secretly on many editors for no substantial reason. So please don't force this issue into a dark corner. There was nothing in your email that could not be said here, so why this clandestine behaviour.Giano (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano - I'm waiting for other input on this, to check if what I was given other's concerns over is actually a reasonable concern, or an unnecessary one, and if so its implications. And to address your other points. I've already spent some time speaking to the other person involved. Please bear with me while some Q&A's go back and forward a bit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

...and this silly behaviour [53] is getting beyond a joke. Giano (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

People are allowed to remove content from their own userpages, so it is probably not best to revert such removals. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah my little gnome-like stalker how are you? Giano (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)