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)

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)