User talk:FT2

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive
  Closed topics are archived to approx. March 21 2008.

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. 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.

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"'

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.

[4] 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.

[5] 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.

[6] 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.

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

[8] 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.

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

[10] 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.

[11] 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.

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

[13] 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.

[14] 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 [15], 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 [16]. 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 [17]. 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 [18]. 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" [19] 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)

FT2, I've undone this block - just blocking an IP or range from account creation only is impossible; what you actually did was block the anonymous range and prevent any named account from editing from that range (aka a hardblock). I've dropped it down to block anonymous users (cannot be avoided) and to prevent account creation, while directing affected people to the unblock list. east.718 at 01:31, April 15, 2008

I know people who could help track a troublemaker down at USC, if you're having no luck getting in touch with the abuse team there. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:54, 15 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)

Unblocked 128.125.0.0/16

It's too wide a rangeblock and too small a problem, I feel, to keep that big a range blocked for a long time even for account creation and anonymous use. I'll apply a narrower rangeblock if the idiots return. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Hi, FT2...I was cleaning up the OTRS categories, and I was wondering if, on your User:FT2/Userboxes page, you could please change Category:OTRS to Category:Wikipedia OTRS volunteers. I would do it myself but the page is protected. Thank you! Kelly ^hi! 15:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Need urgent help: suicide note

A suicide note was left by a registered user and some fellow admins and I are trying to do the right thing. Can you see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self-harm and continued at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide. I see you have access to checkuser. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. You can email me directly or perhaps you could contact the Australian Federal Police - www.afp.gov.au - +61 2 9955 4923. Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Done - police contacted, all details given, original edit oversighted for privacy of the minor concerned. See WP:ANI. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think theres a link somewhere in the wp:ani thread with a name in it, maybe that should be removed also? --Apis 01:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's more than just a link, you might want to go over it. --Apis 02:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Done that too - thanks. Oversighted most of it as privacy breaching + minor, and checked the links at ANI. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

email sent

Email sent RE:suicide note. Viridae^Talk 01:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't arrived yet. Can you resend? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No its not useful anymore. I was asking for the details so I contact the relevant authorities - I'm in Melbourne. Viridae^Talk 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Message

		Thank you
		I would just like to say thank you for your efforts regarding the potential suicide thread on ANI last night. This may have been a poor taste message or hoax, but if it wasn't hopefully...... we may have made a real difference. So thank you and if ever there is anything I can do to help you in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. Khukri 08:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Offline a bit)

I'm losing draft posts through browser crashes and O/S instabilities, following a motherboard issue here. Some time this weekend, I'm likely to be reinstalling it. I might put some discussions and other matters on ice for a bit while that happens. Sorry :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine well let me know about those science articles you wrote when it's fixed. I couldn't find them. The Rationalist (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick update - the resident PC did die. Fully backed up though. Looking like a motherboard fault, we'll know more tomorrow hopefully. Just online to grab Memtest86 as it could be RAM also. Predictably it chose a Saturday to do this, the longest wait till customer support lines open :) May have intermittent access at friends and family till it's fixed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well fine, could we have a link to one of these science articles you claim to have written then? Thanks The Rationalist (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, motherboard is surely the problem; a range of diagnostic tests showed up red for an hour, then green , then red for an hour, and so on. It's going back under warranty for testing for a week. Luckily the old PC works, but it's slower. So effectively I'm hoping it's resolved. If they can reproduce the fault and replace it, I'll be offline a little while again, in a few days, to install its replacement. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnyajohn redux

I strongly suspect that User:Johnyajohn/User:Octavian history has returned as 68.175.69.57, for reasons I have given at User talk:68.175.69.57. The IP is currently under a 1-week block. You might recall the RfAR 2 months ago that was eventually moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Octavian history. I am not sure whether the RfAR is still open or not, but if it is, I'm really not sure whether this warrants ArbCom's attention at this point. However, it is worth noting that the content that 68.175.69.57 added has also received media coverage (see also Talk:Marilyn Monroe#Sex tape section). I thought perhaps I'd ask about it here first, given your previous involvement with the user in question. Thanks in advance, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WG experiment

Hiya, I've started a thread about my "Digwuren" experiment at WP:AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Since you were involved with the setup of WP:WORKGROUP, I wanted to let you know. FYI, Elonka 12:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:'Anonymous' posting on a blog.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:'Anonymous' posting on a blog.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008 long discussion

Archived by request of Irpen and FloNight, to help put the matter to bed. (The link to the archive's at the top of the page, if you're looking for it.)

A related thread on WP:AE has also been closed.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Current

I'm confused as to what you mean by current, there was no wording regarding WP:BLP at all in the page until I added them, which is why I added them. I also believe the statement at WP:BLP regarding the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material is quite important here. If that is policy, then that has to be extended to deletion policy. Hiding T 12:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• ah, I see, I missed a whole swathe of BLP too. This place really is too big. Hiding T 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah :) But well spotted that it needed doing :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2, as you've clearly been following this discussion (based on your well-written response), I presume that other members might be aware of it. Has the committee had any discussions on this matter? If the community is hell-bent on setting up a RFCheck system, do you have any advice on how to gauge community consensus for approval or disapproval? I'm loathe to set up a straw poll, but that might be the simplest way to get a wide cross-section of community input. While I agree with you that there are foundation-level issues to hash out, I also can see that the idea has some legs, which could be good or bad. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If the community nominates somebody, ArbCom or the Foundation still has to approve because Checkusers need to provide identification, and be given legal advice on how to carry out their duties. I personally think community nominations are a good idea, but that ArbCom and the Foundation should retain veto power not to grant Checkuser status if there are concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

I sent you an e-mail recently, to which you haven't responded. Did you get the e-mail? I'm prohibited by ArbCom from discussing the subject on-wiki. Everyking (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll check, I'm away much of the weekend but I'll look out for it on my return. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent another e-mail; could you please respond to this one? Everyking (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Everyking (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just to say I respect the decision you made the other day. Sometimes it's better just to put something away and, as Flo says, encourage an act of kindness by volunteering an act of kindness. You did the right thing. (Hope that makes sense). The Rationalist (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have ported over the first section of the WG "Dealing with disputes" page, here to the EN wiki, at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dispute resolution. If you have a chance, could you please take a look before I make it more public? Thanks, --Elonka 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

IP block exemption

I finally got around to checking your changes at Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Thank you very much for making them!

The only thing that has me a bit confused were some of the rather extreme limitations and sanctions for what basically amounts to a small tweak to the login procedure. Am I missing some huge elephant in the room?

I've toned down the language for now, and I left thoughts on the talk page as I worked on it.

Then I noticed the in a nutshell summary which was subtly but utterly wrong. It said that IPBlockexempt allowed editing from a blocked ip-address. Technically it does not, it only allows access to the log-in screen from a blocked ip-address. (And then the standard log-in procedure determines if you are granted access or not.). Without ipblock-exempt, you can't get to the login screen in the first place, which has been somewhat frustrating for established users at times. If that's what the worry was, well, that's a big difference! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP Issue

Hello FT2:

I'm bringing here a concern that I think we share.

You recently put a BLPWatch tag on this article:

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley‎

I'll just blurt this out.

Frankly, I think that too little care is being given to the concerns and sensibilities of some of the people who are the subject of articles. I think this is one of those cases.

There seems to me to be an unwillingness among editors to assume good faith on the part of people who are the subjects of articles, an unwillingness even to be polite to them, and a willingness to provoke them unnecessarily.

There is a discussion in the talk page Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Article is broken - how do we progress from here?‎ which I hope you will have time to look at, and comment on if you see fit.

If you wish to discuss any of this further, I am at your service.

Wanderer57 (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The following is strictly personal opinion: I suspect this man is not an easy person to deal with. He has opinions that some people consider strange, myself included. That being the case, I think particular attention should be paid to policy and civility. I fear that less is being paid.

P.P.S. It may help your understanding of the discussion if I note that MOFB is used in the discussion as an acronym for (Viscount) Monckton of Brenchley.

P.P.P.S. I will also advise that the first Viscount of Brenchley, the grandfather of the present Viscount, was made a Viscount in recognition of extraordinary service to the British Royal Family.

Question

Hi, 66.176.139.95 (talk · contribs) posted this comment to Raime's talk page, threatening to kill him if they ever meet. I know this warrants a block for such a strong PA, but I don't know if I should start a topic at ANI since his threat was made several hours ago. The reason I'm asking you is because I checked the edit history of ANI and yours was the first name I saw. :) I just don't want to post there and then someone tell me it's "static" and doesn't warrant a block. I guess my question is in future cases, should a topic at ANI be started even if an IP makes a threat several hours/days beforehand, or should I just message an admin. Thanks for your help. APK ^{yada yada} 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd block, and good call to ask if unsure. I'll pass it on to another admin since I'm heading out for the rest of the day, and they'll handle it for you.

Thanks once again!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers! APK ^{yada yada} 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

Could you please verify that ticket #2008041110026206 verifies that Image:Machinedrum.jpg is released under the GFDL, and if so let me know on my talk page? A user has claimed this and I just want to be sure it's all in order. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Message on your user page

You might have missed this (I nearly did). See here. I don't really want to get involved again, but I think that is the user trying to make his grievances known to an arbitrator (that is what I advised him to do), so I'm letting you know. Carcharoth (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ani#Closing_comments_from_Shalom

Please read. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

The Weidman/DPeterson et al entity is back. Look here [20]. This is a drive by tagging on a page on which User:Jean Mercer and I are working. If you look at the contribs here [21] you can see it is the IP the entity used when harassing Jean Mercer about tax forms during the currency of DPetersons original ban and before he was banned in his own name [22]. Here Dr Becker-Weidman states it is him,[23]Fainites ^barley 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence agreed, IP blocked. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser block

FT2, there seems to be some checkuser block collateral damage here. Regards.--chaser - t 11:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, very quick and efficient! Cheers, Simon Oolon (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Washington International University

I see that you protected this page for several days to allow for resolution of a "dispute." I think I am supposed to be one of the parties to this "dispute," but AFAICT there has been no actual dispute. Apparently there has been private communication to sysops and/or OTRS regarding a person's desire to have his name removed from the article. Meanwhile, an anonymous user and an unregistered user repeatedly removed the sourced content about this person without explanation, and a couple of us "regulars" who have that article on our watchlists restored the deleted content and asked the users to explain their edits (see User talk:82.35.92.132 and User talk:AdamSimon24). If someone were to tell us that the person named in that section had requested deletion, I think it is highly likely that we would respect their wishes. [Wink] --Orlady (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There's been a dispute indeed -- a revert edit war on the article. The issue isn't misconduct so much as "should the article contain X material". As mentioned on that talk page, the user involved in the removal has emailed and I've checked they are indeed very likely the subject of that text. So it's no longer really appropriate we consider them merely as "some anonymous person removing sourced material". I've explained the edits on the talk page, and checked the matter out carefully, for discussion.

Since it involves a possible BLP issue, and a person who is a suubject of biographical material that's incidental to the article has asked for it to be reviewed and removed, it seemed best to protect the article from further revert/reinstate activity for a few days (I think I protected it for 3 days), to allow a bit of time for discussion and consensus. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing Adjudication Board

Really nice idea FT2. Just what Wikipedia needs! Trouble is - I think the committee is going to find itself overwhelmed with applications for one of these in a huge range of areas where editors are sick to death of spending their life battling with POV pushers in respect of which there is little remedy provided they're averagely polite. Be interesting to see where this one goes. Fainites ^barley 13:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Tango

I'm not sure if you'll be voting on the remainder of this case, but if you are, this is to remind you (or inform you in case you didn't know) that principle 7, finding 3 and the remedies may particularly need your votes in order for this case to close sooner. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review your comments

FT2, I respect you, even when I've disagreed with you, so I was a bit surprised at the cavalier way you described my first comment at the Talk:Washington International University page:

Disagreement with that particular line of thinking. This would be more relevant to an agenda about a person's self-description and the title they use, and advocacy issues. "He used a degree to burnish his name so it's fair to cite him as an exemplar of this university" (or even the more extreme "His PR people should stop calling him Doctor, otherwise if they continue he should be cited as an exemplar of this university"), is the kind of thinking we do not use in an encyclopedia. Ie, how the individual might choose to style themselves personally and what their PR people state, is fairly unrelated to their usefulness as an exemplar of the university. (There may be other good reasons, but this doesn't feel like one of them.)

I bent over backward to consider how including this guy's name in the article could hurt him. I concluded that he might be embarassed at having paraded his degree around in public -- the only reason I could find that would outweigh the value of having his name as an example of the graduates. Having bent over backward to consider your position, I find you blatantly misreading and disparaging my argument. Please take the time to reread it. Consider that I was trying to weigh one good (to him) vs. another good (to the readers of the encyclopedia). If he's still using the title "Dr." from a WIU degree, then he isn't embarassed and he has other reasons for wanting his name dropped. Should Wikipedia just roll over for anyone not notable enough for an encyclopedia article? That's not a policy worthy of an encyclopedia, but I haven't seen anything that separates that thinking from your thinking. You're obviously busy with a lot of things on Wikipedia, but I'd appreciate it if, in criticizing my "kind of thinking" and saying it's something "we do not use in an encyclopedia" that you would read my comment carefully and concentrate on addressing the points rather than characterizing them so negatively that it amounts to a criticism of me. I think that would be a more constructive course. If you want to criticize me, feel free to do it on my talk page. Noroton (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if that got taken in a way I didnt mean it. To clarify, the concern is the line of thought you're suggesting, not at all you personally. Reading your point, I don't agree that whether we cite this person depends on what their PR crew may do in future, or how they style themselves. By contrast much of the argument you proposed was based on considerations such as whether he commences to style himself as "Dr." again, whether he's been called that recently, if it's used in public, whether his WIU degree is used to "burnish his name", and whether he is asking the public to trust him on that basis. You mention his usage and its integrity (or allude to them) multiple times, but to me his usage doesn't add anything to the question of whether an encyclopedia would use him as an exemplar. To put it even more simply, the issue "is he using, and if so is he using it well, or questionably" is not one I feel has any bearing on whether we mention him in the article or not. But that seems the main thrust of your reasons, and the ulk of your answer, and I just don't feel those are considerations I rate highly in forming a decision on the use of this person as a "prominent graduate" when they've asked not to be cited as one.

Hope that clarifies.

Crossposted to talk page, for discussion there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

I have replied to your question at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#WikiProject on closed proxies.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlock request

Please take a look at User talk:Tholly and confirm that they are not one of the intended blockees. Thanks. Woody (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have granted this user ipblockexempt. SQL^{Query me!} 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Durova

Are you aware, reviewing your action here that Durova, in an interview with her, named herself, using her own full, real name. And that this interview is on YouTube? Wjhonson (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. But if you re-read carefully, it doesn't change anything really. We don't expect people (arbitrators included) to patrol all other websites where matters may be covered. It wouldn't be practical. Also as a norm we look at conduct here more than conduct elsewhere.

On this site, this user gratuitously decided to use a person's name as part of their dispute tactics, and this was clearly not out of friendliness, but out of some kind of serious adversarial motive, as the last 20 or so contribs suggest (example).

The block is preventative. Punitive would be "you named a name, and therefore must be punished". The block isn't for that. It's more, "You disrupted, and went too far over the line in disruption, you treated Wikipedia like a battleground, and forgot the basics. When you fully understand this, you may request an unblock."

That ground for an indef block would be valid, whether or not such information could be found off-site if one went looking for it hard enough. An indef block prevents editing until a problem is addressed. At any time since April 5, the door has been open for this editor to say whenever they choose, "I'm willing to drop past conduct and won't do it again". The offer stands, as it has since then. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't hard. Durova, presenting herself an a Wiki maven, did an interview in the scope of her editing activities, in which she divulged her own name. When someone becomes a public figure in that way, what policy exactly is used to say "You can't name Jimmy Wales, when talking to Jimmy Wales". Durova as well is quite within-her-right to state "I will never again say my name in an interview." It's not exactly a fair position to take, that we cannot report what is news. When Durova does a broadcast interview, she is presenting herself as a public figure. It's a little odd to now say "Oops". And then block other editors for pointing it out.Wjhonson (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Err. No. There is a huge difference between "pointing it out" and what happened here. It's roughly the difference between saying "Hi Jim, how are you?" to a friend who regularly goes by that name (and apologising if unwished for), and saying "Anyway, someone should desysop you, User:Anon - who happens to be Jim Smith of 32 E. Something Street SSN 123456789". See the difference? One's in friendship, one's in spite. The fact a user chose to tell some people, off-site, her details, is a good reason to accept someone slipped. But this (from memory) wasn't in any way a slip - it was "I don't like her, I want to make a POINT, so I'm going to gratuitously use her name rather than the name she uses here". Sorry, but that's a big difference, from where I am. Like I said, when the user understands we aren't a battleground here, and this isn't a place to do some things, that's what the block is for. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not "some people". Rather "the world". Durova did an interview. She did it, intending that interview to have wide dissemination, not to some friends, but to everybody. You can see this, I know. The person pointing out her name, did not include her SSN, that's a red herring argument. I don't accept the argument that they were trying to make a point by stating her name. I also don't accept that we cannot report her name, when she has made her own name clear, by her own actions. Please be clear that the *sole* argument here I'm making, is that we can report her name. Nothing else. Her name, only. Wjhonson (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not gratuitously on-wiki, other than if volunteered by the user to the community. And even then, if later withdrawn, that usually gets respected. Many cases of this exist. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Eleemosynary has 4,000 edits and has been here almost three years. He was attacked and provoked to the point of explosion. And partly over an incident the user in question brought on herself. It seems a little leeway should be exercised here. An indefinite block seems a bit of overkill. Wjhonson (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking of a ban. This isn't a ban at all, far from it. It's not even a block of a fixed lengthy duration. Re-read WP:INDEF to reassure yourself. An indef block means simply "we need to sort something out before they can carry on editing". As I said above, At any time since April 5, the door has been open for this editor to say whenever they choose, "I'm willing to drop past conduct and won't do it again". The offer stands, as it has since then. All an indef block means is, this is conduct thats not okay, we need to agree it won't recur, or they understand it's not acceptable, and then they can go back to editing. They could do that on the day, or a year later, it's completely up to them. But the block itself is appropriate -- they simply can't react that way and as soon as they say "okay, sorry, I was provoked but I understand I shouldn't have reacted that way and won't again"... that's all that's needed for an unblock. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has now removed my request for Elee to come back from his talk page. How is the community supposed to contact Elee except to post to his talk page? He does not have e-mail established (or it's being blocked in-wiki). You're not saying that the community cannot communicate *with* him, he can only communicate with us, are you? This would also go for him being able to say "I'm sorry" or whatever. This is now prevented by protection. That doesn't seem in accord with the project goals. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See here where I relate to Jayvdb that this is not a permanent ban, but rather a block.

The page has never been protected [24]. The message both there, and in the block message that the user will get any time they try to access Wikipedia, says how to request unblocking. They are advised they can use the unblock template, or if needed, email specific addresses from OTRS to arbcom. Other users can write to them on their talk page, as I see you have done. That's absolutely normal. As said, the door's been wide open since the incident on April 5, and nothing has stopped them saying "Okay, won't do it again, now please unblock me." Which is all that's needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

I would like to call your attention to this deletion that I disagree with and User talk:TimVickers#AIDS denialism where I comment on it. Today I am notifying you and Viridae then walking away and letting you guys sort it out. Thank you for helping Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Need more personal integrity from admins

(Crossref Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence and this later diff)

• This case, more than most, concerns personal integrity. I know people are under pressure, I know they have real trolls to deal with, but what we're seeing from some quarters is not good enough.
• Questions swirl around SlimVirgin in this respect - as they've done for a long time. Internal and external observers must be surprised she remains an administrator.
• Similarly, experience suggests serious concerns about Felonious Monk. His one-month opening block on me was collusive and disproportionate - not to say partisan and perverse. Look carefully at the timings, the way "my "critics" arrived very quickly whereas "my supporters" only much later after the deed was done. I'd not been around long enough to even recognize "my defenders", let alone have formed alliances against this sectarian assassination. Watch how "my defenders" are treated - this was a rail-roading with community involvement stamped upon. It is not open-editing recognizable to fair-minded people. PR^talk 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Request - Please try to add evidence for the statements made, backed by cites (diffs or page links) that can be reviewed to see if they do in fact support the claims. Statements like "questions swirl around X" or "Observers must be surprised at Y" or "My critics arrived quickly" have zero evidentiary value as they stand, since no evidence is given to allow the claims to be checked and evaluated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments on SV are as vague as I can make them, with reason. The evidence I present on Felonious Monk's conduct is contained in that one incident and reference. (I did start detailing the timings, 9 minutes to see the evidence-free complaint and block me for a month, 24 hours for anyone who might object to notice - but decided against it).

I'm confident that anyone interested can go to my link and find it demonstrates what I claim, a disgraceful pile-on for ideological reasons (though FM is not necessarily the worst culprit in that case or others). The recent CAMERA affair proved that administrator status is considered a key way to distort articles - my conduct is as different from these cheats as it could possibly be. I'd like the ArbCom to concern itself more with the personal integrity of POV editors - I'm not the only one of these by a very long chalk! And the ArbCom know exactly what I'm talking about - so a longer entry wouldn't help them in the slightest. PR^talk 00:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are trying to be as vague as possible, then you should simply not submit evidence onto the Evidence page. Vague evidence is not useful input into the Evidence page. If you feel that confidentiality is required, submit your evidence via the arbcom email address. If you dont provide diffs, I will remove your section from the Evidence page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You have stated that "the ArbCom know exactly what I'm talking about". As a member of the Arbitration Committee, I don't. So for me, there's zero information in your statement. In which case it's likely that's so for other people as well. As well, the aim is evidence, not hearsay. Hence the request for full specific details and evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman misunderstood

I too would be suspicious of an editor who used the summary "formating" when providing significant changes as you thought was going on here.[25] However, those changes that I made in both of those instances WAS formatting. Just minutes before doing THESE minor formating changes, I proposed a larger change, as evidenced here...and that is probably summarized, as "Several important meta-analyses published in RS and notable journals...please review before changing or deleting" [26] This is a perfectly accurate summary, but I screwed up the formating of the references and therefore had to correct them twice. These two edits WERE formating issues to the complex new review of meta-analyses that I provided just previously (in re-doing my edit, I had to delete an entire section of previous NEW information, and then provide correct formating of references. In THIS instance, I urge you to see the good faith efforts here, not anything else. I hope that you will clarify the charge that you have made here because my actions were legitimate and honest. If another editor "alerted" you to your previous assumption of bad faith of my part, I hope that you will reconsider your attitude towards this editor as having an extreme POV and as evidence of someone out to get me. Humbly yours...DanaUllman^Talk 00:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops...my bad...you provided the correction to Sam Blacketer's comment. Thanx for that correction...and my apology for my initial confusion here. DanaUllman^Talk 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed :)

More seriously, whatever a person may have done right or wrong, a decision should not cite a mistaken reading of evidence. It's quite possible that my colleague's view still stands and he simply chose that diff as an example by mistake. But either way the diff was not in fact evidence of the statement made, and that needs fixing whatever else may be the case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I never have a problem when a person disagrees with me or if an editor points out an error or mistake I made (or may have made), though it is reassuring when others point out that the problem was simply a mis-reading/mis-understanding. Heck, we all make mistakes. DanaUllman^Talk 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by FT2

There seem to be a couple of matters you are fighting on today at least - a RFAR redirect issue, and the removal of the prohibition on mediating for others. Unfortunately both of those seem to be problematic. The Arbitration Committee generally manages its own subpages, and there doesn't seem to be consensus either by Arbitrators, or arbcom clerks, or even by the community, to treat those differently than they are being treated. And the mediation issue, was considered by appeal very recently, and whilst questions were raised as to whether a lesser restriction might help, in the end, no arbitrator was willing to say the restriction should be removed as recently as March 2008. Wider communal consensus on both just says no interest in more discussion, best I can tell.

The communal concern in the mediation issue seems to be that you are still prone to arguement rather than discussion, and unfortunately that seems to be the case. On the other hand you are under considerable stress and are likely snapping at many things in part for that reason too. (Others have done so as well, not just you, I should add.) The concern I have is that these topics may be going nowhere in which case eventually your continuing pushing at them will just be seen as a problem by others.

I'm not sure what to suggest, but accepting what is, rather than consistently reacting to it, is probably going to be part of it. Easy for me to say, I know; I dont feel under pressure of the circumstances you've described. So I am wary of saying a lot because Im not sure I can be a help here, sadly. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I dislike my activity to be classified as "fighting". I am not confronting - hardly arguing. I am not even being treated seriously... My efforts have been declared as trolling though. That sure surprised me. Please avoid such language.

Clarification. Issues I discussed today:

1. Possible restructuring of arbcom's main page WP:RFAR into two sub pages
   • This effort was declared as trolling
2. Recreation of Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Davenbelle redirect
   • This discussion was closed, the admin deleting the page refuses to discuss this out of process deletion.
   • I am not binded by any rule arbitrators aren't.
3. FYI I relayed to arbcom over my intention to ignore their decision completely.
   • It doesn't qualify as an ultimatum as I am not proposing anything. Also an ultimatum to mediate would be an oxymoron.

• I do not believe arbitrators seriously discussed my appeal. If they have, I see no evidence of it. I think arbitrators do not have the slightest clue what those restrictions are doing to me - to a person who would rather die than mediate something on this project. Arbitrators have succeeded in disgusting me away from mediation. Let there be no mistake about it.
• It is simply offensive to every value I believe in such as honesty and fairness that arbcom and the community is willing to consider unblock/unban of trolls, vandals and other disruptive users (I am not even referencing to the Jack Merridew case) and yet go out of their way to ignore my appeal. How many edits does the indef blocked MARMOT get? MARMOT being a person who wrote vandalism bots, abused MediaWiki vulnerabilities to vandalize among other issues. He was unblocked and given a second chance, twice. Me being a good user (relative to MARMOT at least) have been given no such chances. What have I done to deserved to be treated so poorly?
• Then there is the matter of how would people punish me for successfully mediating... Seriously, would you block me? Even if the Mediation fails to resolve the dispute... Would you block me? Even if I were to be blocked for how long would it be? Based on what? Arbcom remedy doesn't even talk about blocking.
• Do you have any idea how much crap I need to deal with due to the expired remedies? Do you? Do you have any idea how useless arbcom has been so far? I have been bringing issues to arbcom since 2005. Not only do I need to hand feed arbitrators evidence and etc but I also have to deal with their poor judgment which only affects me. I am condemned to many things as a result.
  • Even a one week newbie knows I will never be granted admin tools.
    • Why? because I have been infront of arbcom at least four times now. In all cases Davenbelle was of course involved. A 5th case was avoided which is why the arbcom is still dealing with this.
  • I am completely banned from editing Kurdish or Armenian related articles even if the article isn't controversial.
    • I want to point out a good deal of these articles are hijacked by lobbyists. CAMERA people were merely careless, they aren't the only one. The Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case is a tool only useful to lobbyists. Regular inexperienced users can be sanctioned. Experienced paid/unpaid staff of lobbies can change accounts faster than you can change underwear.
  • No one has been taking be seriously since the first arbitration case. People always assume bad faith and mistreat me. They constantly accuse me of a hidden agenda. They call me paranoid even in the light of Christal clear evidence.
  • I am in a position where I cannot loose anything.
    • I am on a dynamic IP range. I know the inner workings of the community and MediaWiki to avoid any kind of block. I have obeyed any block to dat voluntarily even if I could easily avoid them. This isn't intended as a threat btw. It isn't like there is anything the community can take away from me.
      • I will not compromise from my personal values on honesty and fairness even if it incriminates me. So getting another account is out of the question for me. Dishonesty works better in the mechanics of our wiki-society. Under the guise of "privacy" you and I know how many sanctioned people returned editing. They become less disruptive so as to stay under the radar - but what was the point of the sanction?
• I already know from experience that the arbitration committee is anything but helpful. This isn't intended to be an insult. Just an observation from experience. So I know my expectations.

I am willing to listen others as much as they are willing to listen to me. You are obviously willing to listen to me which is why I am willing to listen to you as a person. I consider you different from rest of the arbitrators per your initiative to talk to me.

-- Cat ^chi? 04:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Difference in timesptamp is the amount of thought I put into this. -- Cat ^chi? 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

vandalism?

This editor seems to have taken to making random deletions of random chunks of articles.[27] Fainites ^barley 17:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikiproject on closed proxies

You suggestions have been replied to at WT:WikiProject on closed proxies.  Atyndall93 | talk  13:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at a reply to a question you asked concerning the C68-FM-SV ArbCom case

Dear FT2,

I am replying to your request on the Workshop page of the C68-FM-SV ArbCom case for some more general/historical explanation of the problems under consideration there. First off, an apology: I know you requested any replies to be posted to the Evidence page, but the generality of my remarks makes me ashamed to consider them as any kind of “evidence.”

I will not comment on Cla68 or SlimVirgin, as the issues there are so convoluted as to defy explanation. About SlimVirgin I will only say that on some matters she has been spot on (e.g. WP:BLP) while on others she has been way off (e.g. Factory farming), and some of her behaviour questionable. That said, I do not wish to contribute to any great campaign against her, and in my judgment it seems there is a lot of unwarranted hysteria concerning her behaviour.

So I will confine my remarks to FeloniousMonk and the situation I describe in my evidence: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:FNMF.

On the one hand I believe that FeloniousMonk has clearly behaved poorly in relation to the Christopher Michael Langan article, and in relation to myself. I believe these problems are greater than I indicated in my evidence, and constitute a general pattern of bullying and intimidation which there was no point explaining in Evidence. But on the other hand, I believe this “general pattern” would not have been possible without the collusion of other editors who share FeloniousMonk’s opinion about creationists and who reinforce each other’s behaviour.

At this point I should add that I am not a creationist nor a proponent of intelligent design. Chances are that I would agree with most of the opinions and judgments of FeloniousMonk and his fellow travellers on such matters, and as I am not interested in engaging in such “evolution wars,” I have not investigated the behaviour of these editors on any related articles other than the Langan article. My opinion of what occurred with that article is that these editors mistakenly identified Langan as a “proponent of ID,” and therefore reinforced each other’s opinion that Langan could be considered an “enemy” to be got at. What developed was a pack mentality, making it possible for these editors to flout WP:NOR and WP:BLP, and making possible FeloniousMonk’s inappropriate use of administrative tools. I should add: only the direct intervention of Jimbo Wales was able to cause policy-violating material to be removed.

As for deeper reasons, I do feel there is something in the psychology of those devoted to defeating creationists that amounts to a love of black-and-white distinctions. Why do certain individuals like to take up the cause of defeating creationists and the like? Their answer would usually amount to: because it is correct, because it is a threat to science, etc. All valid responses. But I think that psychologically there is more at stake for those for whom these battles become personal. I think that partly the reason they are attracted to these particular battles is because they feel they can be so confident that they ARE right, and that their opponents are irrational and wrong. In other words, they are people who enjoy that feeling of being right, and of attacking and defeating the foolish and the wrong. As such, once they have designated an enemy, they are wont to permit themselves certain latitudes of behaviour in the battle against that enemy, because they are an enemy undeserving of sympathy in their view. And wherever they encounter those who see more than one side to a question (such as my opinion that Langan is NOT in fact a proponent of intelligent design), these are judged to be either enemies in disguise (sock- or meat-puppets), or else to be caught in the thrall of irrationality, and thus equally to be dismissed. In general, these anti-ID editors permit themselves bad behaviour because they consider that what ID-promoters are doing is so reprehensible as to always be far worse than anything they themselves might be accused of. In short, they have more in common than they imagine with the religious zealots they take their "enemies" to be.

Now, as I said, I would just about always take the side of the evolutionists over the creationists, if asked. So I do not want to deny that part of the reason for the evolution wars on Wikipedia has been that there is a group of people trying to introduce an irrational and incorrect notion into Wikipedia entries, and, worse, to pass it off as science. I am in favour of defending Wikipedia against those who intend promoting intelligent design as scientific. But I also believe that a certain culture has developed among those Wikipedia editors who see themselves as engaged in the battle against ID: they have, collectively, decided that Wikipedia is the appropriate battleground for evolution, and that it is the battleground where they are the heroes engaged in the honourable struggle. To what extent this has caused problems on other evolution-related pages I cannot say, as I have not been involved with such pages. What I can say is that it meant that this group of editors felt justified in maliciously attacking a man (Chris Langan) who in my opinion is not an advocate of ID, and who, whether he is or isn’t, did not deserve the treatment he received. And in the course of doing so, they unashamedly violated Wikipedia policies and in the case of administrators abused their privileges. What should happen as a result of these errors is not for me to say, although I do question whether FeloniousMonk ought to be permitted to retain the administrative tools he has abused.

These are matters from the past, about which I am no longer really concerned, so I am not trying to stir anything up. I did feel, however, that the story leading to my block may be relevant to the ArbCom case, and I also felt I might have some opinions pertinent to the question you asked. If my response here is off base, I apologise, but thanks for taking the time to read it anyway. FNMF (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

When you have time....

Looks like you have your hands full, but would appreaciate your taking a look here at User:Ryulong's talk page, where I raised a question about a few possible socks of User:Zippycup and was looking for the RFCU, if any to add it. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Oh? Link? Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yale IP addresses

Hi, I still haven't gotten any response from you are another ArbCom member. It has been a week since you said that you were waiting for some additional checkuser data and were going to "nag now". Again, I don't know how long Yale is going to have the IP data so a prompt response would be helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, hello? I still haven't gotten a response about this. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/SSP-RFCU merger proposal

FT2, I've a comment under Rudget's comment on the above noticeboard, which I'd be interested in seeing your response to. Could you pop by if you have a moment? Anthøny 22:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And again, if you have the time. :) Anthøny 15:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bodil stone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bodil stone.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - PLEASE HELP

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to you as Arbcom member to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter.

This is a massive injustice, and only allows others to continue to assert factually incorrect, malicious, offensive and POV items about my country.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.246.83 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request from a range you blocked [28]

Looks like it needs some superduper tools to resolve this one. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you DELETE File:The new lot 154.jpg? BJ (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Because unusually for the internet, we try to take care of things a bit better. Not easy with thousands of things going on. At the risk of being intrusive, I am uncomfortable with a minor advertizing so much personal and identifying information. It can be harmless... but often doesn't end well. Admin judgement that its best all around, not on the user page. In a year's time, there will be enough experience to make the decision. Until then, I hope this will be okay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got to concur, the internet is a dangerous place and wikipedia isn't regulated as a place to protect people. So while we welcome individuals of all ages to contribute, advertising one's ago and location, if one is under 18, is a very very bad idea. Its for your own protection that FT2 deleted the image and page, and that Tiptoety deleted the RFA. Please try to be more careful with your identifying information in the future. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ipblock-exempt granted

FYI: User talk:Kick52 has been granted ipblock exempt after claiming he was blocked by [29]. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SimpsonsFan08 unblock

Just to clarify, you did write the emails mentioned by User:SimpsonsFan08 in his request for unblock that indicated Jimbo and/or ArbCom signed off on the unblock? [30] Mr.Z-man 03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ask for unprotected article

copied from user page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello FT2 I'd like to ask for your help regarding to "unprotected article" issue. Currently I try to edit "MIPRO" article which has been protected and authority for administers edit only. MIPRO is a Taiwan-based leading brand in pro audio industry. I believe that some innovative hi-tech information is worthy to add in wikipedia database. However, I am not a Wiki administer and has no authority for editing. Sincerely invite you to work for this project;hopefully, you will be interested in this article. Absolutely I can provide information for your reference. Please visit at www.mipro.com.tw for detailed information.

well, if you are not interested in this project, please kindly give me advice how to do. Thanks for your prompt attention, and I look for your reply soon. --Wilson0324 (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

MIPRO has been deleted and salted, and the latest revision is lacking Reliable sources, and there are not many news hits. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is very unlikely there will be an article on this. Wikipedia is not a directory of companiies and their inventions/businesses. The article has been deleted many times now, and I have to say that looking at it, I agree with others' opinion.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. --Wilson0324 (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Dalek, Simpsons et al

I blocked DalekChicken as a sock of SimpsonsFan/SimsFan after he said he wouldn't abuse socks anymore, and per his declaration that they were his. I didn't realise that this was to be a new "clean-slate" account, though my block and tag has kindof defeated that now. :( If you think that it should be unblocked, then by all means, do it. I defer completely to your judgement on this. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot approved: dabbing help needed

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. PLease also pass on the message to anybody else who you may think might be willing to help. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

Hi. Betacommand's been caught in an autoblock and he wants to let you know that you've got mail with the details. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Footnoted quotes

Just wanted to remind you (or in case you didn't see it yet, to inform you) that Charles Matthews has left you a reply/question in response to your concerns on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up

You are briefly mentioned in a The Register article. I have listed the article here. Perhaps you know the user name of the Yallop admin? __meco (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheap Trick

Hi! How are you.

I am having a new potential issue with User:Indopug on the Cheap Trick page. I am almost speechless about this. Can you keep an eye on it. I appreciate it.

Thanks Electric Japan (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My assumptions were correct on Indoplug's Tailgating

Hello. There is a user on here who loves to target my contributions on Wikipedia. How can one advance on here when you have someone like this fella,User:Indopug. Loves to remove everyhing I do. I can see his only hobby is going around participating in vandalism. A building reputation he has himself focused on at Wikipedia.

I sense he has no knowledge of nostalgia which Cheap Trick (the issue in question) which Cheap Trick is relying on for years. It makes complete sense when there is an article about the topc on hand. I don't even think he has no knowledge about the group. That is an sssumption of mine. A very boring individual who has one offensive pesky task on here,indeed among other's with other more productive interests.

Wikipedia relies on the generosity of users to contribute to this encyclopedia. But when you have an individual who makes an opportunity to do as much damage as possible. It takes the consistent fun out of it.

I believe that this individual likes to be a rival of the toxic kind to this site. Let me call your attention to him. Primitive Indoplug. He has shown to me one indispensible role on Wiki. Bringing trouble and just trailing me. I liked to have some silence on this as soon as possible. Can you do something about it. The end result to this is that you can resolve the issue in hand. How can one be productive on here with ones like him around targeting others. I know he has a history of it on Wikipedia. I've discussed this issue at a few groups/seminars I've attended here in Japan. Wikipedia shouldn't be about bad reactions to contributions. It should be more welcoming. I could say more about this. Perhaps, I will at a later date. Referring this to you was not something I wanted to do. But I am told you handle those that are targeted in this network of participants on Wikipedia. I hope you can investigate this matter in time. Thanks, Electric Japan (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser activity

Would you be able to comment at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Activity levels of individual Checkusers? Thanks. Added you to the other five people I notified, as I see from this that you mostly wrote (or moved from elsewhere) the checkuser policy. Was the checkuser policy really only written in April 2008? Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure :) glad to. Hopefully I'll get a spare minute, for sure.

As for WP:CHECK, it struck me that we have important stuff about checkuser that users ought to know, and should be documented. Just linking to a summary WMF policy page on meta didn't really do the job enough (you'd usually expect to be more detailed on something like this, than just a "bare bones policy"). Policy pages just document norms, and the norms for checkuser were well established and policy based (WMF), so it was a simple matter to fix that to a reasonable extent.

So I summed up what was WMF policy, and the wiki norms here that are well established, and wrote a policy page based on them, and asked other checkusers and the community "is that about right as descriptions go". I took care not to innovate anything but just to document what's so, in order that the "policy" tag wouldn't be considered contentious (which it would be if it was trying to invent anything new). I figured that was best. And that's how that page came to be written. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Checkuser usage. Were you a statistician in a previous life? :-) Thanks very much for posting those stats. It is difficult sometimes to realise how hard it is to understand what the "behind the scenes" work involves. OTRS and arb-l are other areas that I think people sometimes don't realise how much work goes on. Maybe oversight as well? It is possible to go too far with stats, but minimal stats at least are nearly always helpful on some level. Thanks again for that. BTW, did you put magic 8-ball and Volenti non fit injuria in the checkuser policy? I see the latter was in the version I've linked above, but I haven't found out yet who put in the magic 8-ball link... Carcharoth (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 evidence

This is a heads-up notice that I've posted evidence to the Giovanni33 ArbCom case. I left off the analysis in the middle because I need to go to sleep soon. If you would like me to finish the analysis later, please read what I wrote and let me know if it could resolve a doubt on the Committee's end. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sleepless Clowns

"I'd have emailed this note, but as others have commented, email is disabled."

Just FYIing, his email address and other contact details are in a box on his userpage. Cheers, Sarah 17:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated! have you emailed him to read his talk page, or should I? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't contacted him and I'll let you do that. He was responding to some unblock emails sent to the unblock list up until March 8 but then he disappeared and I haven't had any contact since. Also, I don't think he turned off his email recently for a break. I think it has always been off in favour of contact details on his userpage. I know the fact he doesn't have Special:EmailUser turned on was discussed a year or more ago and, as far as I can recall, people generally tolerated it as long as he had contact details on his userpage. I just looked back to January 2006 and his userpage back then had his email address listed, too, so I think it's just the way he prefers to be contacted. Sarah 17:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On Footnotes Remedy

I hope you are still trying to get this one cleaned up. I don't think it is fair that a really, really, really controversial remedy like this is being airdropped into something as innocuous as a dispute over footnotes. The community is not being given an opportunity to be heard and there is quite a lot of disagreement on how BLP are handled. I would just say that it isn't helpful for certain members to be making statements about libel "timebombs". If this is about Doc Glasgow's rather hyperbolic essay, I would point out that his perspective is tainted by the draconian UK libel laws which are completely different from the ones in the US. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not about anyone elses "stuff", so much as about the question many users face "how best to handle that issue". As for your first comments - yes I hope to and my own comments on it stand on that page and no repeating's needed. Sometimes consensus seeking isn't as easy as it sounds :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I think, after reading your comment, that I am getting too worked up about this. I shall disengage for now. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom communication via ANI

Thank you for addressing my question at Wikipedia:ANI#The_undertow_and_related_dispute; I have made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Request_to_reconsider_Arbcom.27s_communication_culture to address the issue and would appreciate your (and the Committee's) involvement. Skomorokh 22:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am still a bit confused. The_Undertow was blocked for 9 months for arguing and being sarcastic? I am sure there was more, but nothing of that nature made it into the linked AN discussion. It reminds of me of that science cartoon wherein the science problem is the public part of the discussion as well as the ending. All the rest of it is a mystery. Is there a reason it is hidden from view? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot more than that went on in this dispute, that finally led to the decision in the end, but most was off-wiki, and stayed that way. We had been closely attending to this case and in active dialog with several involved people for some weeks, so a lot of matters we took into account were by private discussion of sitting arbitrators only. As stated, due to privacy and legal reasons details aren't really practical though. Like you correctly say, most isn't in the ANI thread (although some of it is indicated), and like the post says, a lot has had to be excluded since the aim is to give a rough idea/explanation, rather than publish all of it in detail. I'm sorry that's so, but it's probably understandable why it's got to be that way. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Block log of the undertow

From looking at the block log for the undertow, it looks unseemly to have arbitrators blocking and unblocking like that. Is this because some arbitrators carry out actions before consensus develops on the arbitration committee? I'm also concerned that Raul used his privileged position of being on the arbitration committee mailing list to follow this (did he participate in the discussion?) and then enact the block. Raul is in a unique position because, unlike other active former arbitrators (I'm assuming The Cunctator and Fennec aren't active, but I don't know there), he failed in a bid to be re-elected (though he did get a lot of support, including mine, IIRC). Do you have any views on these two points? Carcharoth (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/SSP-RFCU merger proposal (2)

Discussion here seems to have died and there's a reasonable consensus to merge, I think. I intend delisting it from {{cent}} as it is no longer active, but you may want to go ahead and implement the merger. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Might be an idea to see if Thatcher still opposes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Either the new system will work for me or I'll find some other way to entertain myself. if most people want to go this way I have no particular interest in trying to stop it singlehandedly. Thatcher 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I remain curious about who will manage the new page since there are currently about 30 cases ready to be archived and no clerks in sight (and I have done about half of the recent archiving myself). Thatcher 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher does a lot of the CU work, and is currently our most active Checkuser, as well as being highly experienced in complex disputes co-ordinating the Arbcom Clerks' team. Consensus doesn't just mean (to me) merely a majority, but also even if a majority exists, working to try and find ways to accomodate as much as can be. So if it's okay, what I'd like to do is 1/ actually first, say there's no rush, and go step by step (no need to rush this and confuse people), and also as well, 2/ discuss with Thatcher how it might incur fewest ripples and any useful preparatory steps. It's more time that way, but seems more right to. I think people will thank us if it were decided first how to better effect the merger and the practical aspect Thatcher considers, rather than dive in moving stuff wholesale. I hope that's okay. It won't need immensely more time to, but will probably be helpful and respectful and have a payoff. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm going out of town tonight for 4-5 days. I hope you aren't in a rush. :)

I have barely looked at the proposed mechanics; it seems to be the case that all sockpuppet investigations will be put on one page. Some will be flagged for checkuser attention by experienced admins, and of course the CUs can use their own judgement and look at cases that are not flagged. My immediate concern is with archiving. Cases with CU results are currently archived in a particular manner (basically, the creation of an index page). Recent findings are especially useful for rechecks, and even stale findings are occasionally useful. I don't know if SSP cases are actually listed on an index somewhere or if they are just closed. I have sometimes run across CU cases that have been delisted without archiving, or closed and delisted without being indexed, and currently there are not enough clerks currently active to keep the page archived on a timely basis. On a mechanical basis, we need to give some thought to closing and archiving of SSP/CU cases that have CU findings vs cases without, whether they are treated differently or not (indexing), and actually having it done in a timely manner. In the earliest days of RFCU the completed checks were just copy-pasted to a series of archive subpages like talk page archiving. This was easier but made it hard to find old checks for comparison. The creation of individual subpages made keeping cases together easier for the CUs but made the process of successfully filing a case more difficult (and then closing and archiving), hence the first clerks. You're going to add another layer of complexity on top; are we prepared to deal with it? As I said, I have not looked at the draft, perhaps these questions have been answered already. Thatcher 23:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a preliminary step, you could add {{CU-SSP|case name|~~~~}} as a transclusion to RFCU. (Someone may want to tweak up the template format etc.) Thatcher 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I started the other end last night - I've pretty much done a retune of SSP that 1/ imports the archiving and searching and "one page" that made RFCU easy, and makes it much much simpler - a matter of moments to open or close/archive a case, and very good search and review ability; 2/ is incredibly simple markup to use and fill out (almost automatic) hence hard to go wrong; and 3/ uses collapse boxes for "old checks" (can be removed if people don't like) for ease of reference. Check it out, and move SSP to that, and then all that's needed is to let it bed in at SSP (where it's similar enough and an improvement, and should make it easier) before introducing the RFCU tag as you suggest. It's the same net effect in the end. There's one final tiny hiccup left (cosmetic almost, a section header issue) that the templating preprocessor which was introduced a few months ago prevents being done in an "obvious" way; hence need to ask Tim or others how to work around it. (WP:VP/T#Conditional section header.) Give it 48 hours or as soon as that's done, and it'll be ready to take a look. Apologies if this sounds pleased; I think it's likely to be good. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, and ready for a look. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Peace Makes Plenty

User talk:Peace Makes Plenty is caught by hard range block, and requesting unblock. Its one of your range blocks. The user has made no edits save one 7 months ago, so it is hard to determine if they are unrelated to the person who is the target of the range block or not. I thought I would pass this on to you to see what you want to do with it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mooch ass grassy ass. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

ur welcome. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, and thank you for your statement at ChrisO's Request for Appeal on the P-I sanctions. I agree with most of what you say, and appreciate that you took the time to offer a thorough response.  :) I do have a question on one section, where you said that the information that ChrisO removed was "a clear violation of BLP (negative and unsourced content)". I disagree with this assessment, and would ask you to take another look. Specifically, I do not agree that the information was unsourced. The statement that he is referring to was this one that Julia added,[31] about al-Durrah's scars coming from a previous incident. Julia1987 did include a source, the dailymotion.com site, which was a subtitled mirror of an Israeli newscast. ChrisO's argument is that the site was a copyright violation and therefore not a valid source, and that once the source was removed, then the remaining statement was left unsourced and could therefore be removed as well, but I disagree with this assessment. I have reviewed the dailymotion.com video, it is an obvious newscast, and it is not clear whether it is a copyright violation or not. Potentially ChrisO could have removed the link to the video (though I would have preferred that he instead tagged it as a possible copyright violation, with the {{copyvio link}} tag). But even without the link to the video, the source still existed. Sources do not have to be online, to be valid. There was no "blatant BLP" violation here. And even if there were a case to be made that the video was a questionable source, ChrisO could have tagged it with {{vc}}. Then, if no better source was produced within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), it could have been deleted.

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some BLP issues which should be handled immediately and aggressively. But in other cases, even when dealing with a BLP issue, I think a more balanced approach is justified per WP:V, as in "tag it and give the other editors a chance to improve the sources." If Julia1987 would have added a blatant unsourced BLP-violating statement like, "so-and-so is a fraud and he used to work in child porn", then I would agree that that was a blatant BLP violation and any editor would be justified in reverting it on the spot. But for her to include a statement which was plausibly sourced to a real news report, was not something that justified immediate deletion. --Elonka 15:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As a followup, another editor just added a more expanded version of what Julia1987 had tried to add, linked to different sources.[32] One of them is the Hebrew-language news site, of which the dailymotion.com site that Julia used, was hosting the English-language subtitled version. In other words, if ChrisO had simply followed the conditions for editing on the talkpage, and tagged the source instead of reverting her entire edit, things would have been resolved much more amicably, without all this disruption. --Elonka 16:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't disagree with much of that, it's a similar theme... "if he had communicated better this would have gone better". In one form or another I think it all comes down to that. So I broadly agree. That said, I looked myself and couldn't find sources or anything attesting to reliability, so I can't blame him for failing and drawing that conclusion, especially given the slant of the other edits. But having checked the diff link you gave for the new text, I like it. Much nicer quality. Barnstar for that editor? :-) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) BTW, I'd like to ensure that I am correctly acting as an "uninvolved" admin. As you know, I have been, and continue to be actively engaged in editing articles in the Middle East and Palestine topic areas, primarily focusing on the Crusader time period. I have also dealt (as an editor) with a number of disputes in these areas. I am likely to be moving more into a dispute resolution capacity on some articles, if I believe I can be helpful in an administrative role. Of course, I wouldn't do this on any specific articles where I have been heavily engaged as an editor, but I do think I can helpful at other disputes in the topic area. So far I am proceeding cautiously. For example, at the al-Durrah article, before starting admin work I posted a clear notice at the talkpage.[33] But what do you think? Should I worry about whether being active on other articles in this area would make me "involved"? Should I always post such a notice and get approval from editors each time? I would like to ensure I am acting properly first, rather than assuming too much (especially in such a contentious area as the P-I articles!). So, if you have a moment to offer guidance here, I would appreciate it, thanks. --Elonka 20:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not usually a problem. It gets to be a problem if you aren't visibly neutral in your admining, for example - you may need to be above average careful to be neutral, and in extreme cases let someone else handle one of them or decide some matter, if it would help ensure visible neutrality. (Also see WP:UNINVOLVED for some pointers.) That said, administrators often specialize in specific areas and matters that interest them, and it would be perverse to say that a user who achieves good results on one dispute in a problem area should not be allowed to then move to other disputes in that area. It would also be strange to require that an admin dealing with edit warriors must have their permission to address the article they edit war on :-) What if they say "no"? So I wouldn't usually ask, but I would be polite and explain what problem you see, and that you'll be keeping an eye on the article from an admin viewpoint for a while, in light of the remedy about editorial conduct and such... whatever. Something appropriate, you'll know what to say.

One caution, if you keep replaying the same issue with the same people, or move towards articles you have prior involvement with, you may want now and then to just note at ANI, "I have topic banned user X on article Y. I notice issues on article Z. I know I dont have to, but this once, I would rather someone else reviewed the case to double check, as neutrality must be of the highest order". Its a safeguard that you have asked someone else to review "just in case" now and then, helps ensure your judgement stays neutral and is perceived as such. And its respectful :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the SSP/RFCU merger

Please keep me posted on how this merger moves forward. As an active respondent at SSP, I will need to learn the new system.

I have a couple of comments.

There have been a few notable controversies where two users have been declared likely sockpuppets even though checkuser could not link them (for example, Mantanmoreland), or conversely, two users were declared likely separate even though checkuser did link them (for example, Orderinchaos). A few of the SSP cases explicitly try to link users on behavioral evidence even when checkuser evidence either is not available or is inconclusive. I would ask you to clarify how such cases will be archived or left open. Think of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris, but then imagine all the mess that would be created if people started doing "lipstick on a pig" and "when was he visiting India" analysis on the same page - though of course that was an exceptionally weird case.

I would like to know if, not being an admin, I am qualified to become a SSP/CU clerk. This question will have ramifications for other users in the future. I am not currently a CU clerk because the primary role of clerks is to block users linked by CU. My understanding - correct me if this is wrong - is that CUs generally leave the blocking to clerks as a voluntary separation of powers, and also to share the burden because doing the checkuser is hard enough by itself. Not being an admin, I have no reason to get involved. However, at SSP as currently constituted, I am able to address a majority of cases based on readily available information - either to recommend a block, or to close without blocking, or close after someone else blocked, or forward to checkuser attention. I can still do all these things. Nobody appointed me to get involved in SSP: I just went ahead and started doing it. My understanding is that the title of "clerk" may have a little more bureaucratic cachet associated with it, and all current CU clerks are admins for the reason I noted. Does the role of a clerk now expand? Is anyone allowed to become a clerk, or is it restricted? To illustrate what may be obvious, suppose a non-admin involved in a content dispute goes ahead and labels two of his opponents as socks and files an RFCU with "self-endorse" on the grounds that anyone can become a clerk. I don't wish to make arbitrary rules as to who can or cannot be a clerk, but either we need to make some arbitrary rules, or we need to make a rule that you can't self-endorse if you are substantively involved in a dispute with the user whom you suspect of sockpuppetry. (In practice, it comes to the same thing because most SSP reports do arise from users who have had direct interaction with the accused user, and are not aloof bystanders.)

Also, I wonder how to handle dispute resolution issues. SSP right now is a clearinghouse for all kinds of issues that really belong elsewhere. Occasionally we get what amounts to a delayed AIV report. Sometimes it's arbitration enforcement. Sometimes it's a proxy dispute for a content dispute that is raging elsewhere, and the comments on the SSP page go on and on and on. I don't like to waste time reading all this stuff, but at the same time I don't like to suppress discussion either. As currently constituted SSP freely allows this sort of open discussion, where CU clerks vigorously suppress this discussion by moving comments to the talk page. Is the CU standard now applicable in all cases? Or is there some leeway for allowing open discussion in some cases?

FYI to the non-admin issue, I will probably be applying for RFA soon. This is not canvassing: I'm just saying that my personal issue may be resolved regardless of whether clerks are admins or can be non-admins. Of course, that question remains relevant to the next user who is in my situation. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think reassurance is fairly easy on most of these :) Will get back to you shortly, waiting for Thatcher to get back first. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

content disputes

I saw your note about your doubts and change of vote at arb com. since the proposal will now not be adopted, it is a good time to try to find something that might be practical for resolving in a definitive way conflicts about article content in general--something that the community would accept. Devoted as I am to the principle of community resolution of these things, we probably do have to deal with a situation where the common way individuals try to resolve them by baiting each other into blockable incivility. The last few I've followed/tried to help at AN/I etc. have been at least a better variation--forcing mediation by threat of blocking, but that is perhaps the most abrasive way available. I'd be glad to work with you on developing something more direct that might work without assuming or engendering ill will on the people concerned DGG (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Already in hand, that discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

where?DGG (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

This isn't archiving, and in any case, the archiving of AN is handled by MiszaBot. If a thread serves no useful purpose, you should post an explanatory note and add a Resolved template under the header. Please revert yourself and follow the proper procedure. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As discussed, Im not usually involved in archiving. Thanks for the heads up. I gather others have fixed it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

low priority: Activation of view-deleted-pages

Heya. I'd {{sofixit}}, but it was signed, so I figure I'll just ask you to do it instead. I figure it's probably valid for discussion to add new pages patrol onto the justifications, mainly because I remember when I wasn't an admin that it drove me nuts trying to find an admin for comparing for G4 material. :P It's technically covered by the second point, but *shrug*. Anyway, just a helpful suggestion. --slakr^\ talk / 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Request in re: Orangemarlin Arbitration

At Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, discussion has been wide and varied on this arbitration case - and I imagine you have a busy weekend ahead of you. Ignoring drama for a moment, though, I would like to make a formal request. Is there information that can be released about the disposition of the case? I acknowledge that, as the case was deemed sensitive enough for a non-public hearing, that many aspects of the proposed decision process are necessarily being withheld, and that's fine. However, would any of the following items be available?

• A list of the active arbitrators for the case?
• By extension, a list of recused arbitrators for the case?
• Vote tallies on the proposed remedies, either those that passed or all proposed remedies? (Specifically, as abstentions would still result in an approval without objection)
• Vote tallies and/or discussion on closing the case?

As you're probably aware, there is concern over this case, and releasing some information on the process and how the decision was formulated would (hopefully!) go a long way to soothing some of the heartburn over this one. Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree this would be helpful. Gnixon (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree this would be helpful as well. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Right now, you're taking the brunt unfairly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I followed your instruction to the letter and submitted Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Secretive hearings: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. Regards, --Irpen 21:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is going to be needed here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OM user conduct rfc

In all the OM arbcomm stuff, I've seem no mention of an user conduct RFC. This is puzzling: in (all?) user conduct arbcomm cases, a user conduct RFC is the first step. Did I miss it? If not, could you explain why the arbcomm decided to reject this step? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

William, read this for your answer, if you haven't already. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

It appears that some confusion over the postings you made today. Your attention is directed at [34]. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I nominate that for the understatement of the month. :) Indeed there is. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Naerii 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Tweaks" needed

FT2, your last post at the AN subpage is utterly incomprehensible. It needs a series of your usual "tweaks" but I also have a feeling that it needs a more straightness and less avoidance as currently it seems it is written with intent to actually say as little as possible. Can you modify it? TIA, --Irpen 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• FT2, I think the matters are really urgent now. It affects the smooth functioning of the community with millions of registered users whose product is watched by hundreds of millions. Please abandon whatever film you are watching, go to the computer you have your records in and at the very least put the names of Arbcom members who has endorsed your decision. If needed I would personally reimburse you the cost of the tickets and taxi fare. I hate to interfere with your private life but the case is really urgent. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

One of FT2's edits earlier today indicated that he was travelling; it's possible that he will be unable to do as you ask until tomorrow anyway. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, FT2 could arrange with any other Arbcom member to fill the proper informations. I assume the data of thos Arbcom case are kept not only on FT2's computer. If anybody from Arbcom could shed any light why the case required such an urgency and secrecy it would be an additional bonus Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, show some patience here folks. WP:Wikipedia is not the Real World (Don't know if it's a bluelink, but it should gosh darn well be one.) Kirill has now said there was discussion and consensus (to a point) on Arb-L, just no formal vote.. so let's let it play ouot. Demands for answers now and emergency "Time to go to the mattresses" sessions aren't the answer. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No deadline notion goes to article editing not to the administrative matters. There are certainly deadline there. If Wikipedians would flight to Egypt and find that there is nothing ready yet because there is no deadline and it is not the real world anyway they would not be happy. The same with a picture penis on the mainpage or an admin going rough Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably not the best idea to post incendiary material and then go AFK. This tends to increase the drama for no good reason. If the community can wait to hear your response, they could also have waited to read your original post. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

you beat me to it. ditto.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China

Sir,

I wish to bring to you attention that a particular user has been repeatedly adding AfD tags to Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China(diffs: [35] [36], [37]). Suspiciously, the user is newly registered and the first thing he does after registration is add such a tag. Another user : User:BobbyFletcher has been repeatedly adding POV tags to the same, well sourced and objective article without any reason. He often presents OR which seem purposely intended to mess things up and interfere with good, well-sourced edits on the article. The "sources" he gives for his OR, never support the allegations he writes into the articles. A particular instance of which is here.

He has also been engaging in personal attacks on other editors, a fellow wikipedian, User:Asdfg12345, recently pointed out to me some recent instances where the user has engaged in personal attacks, as well as repeated addition of his own "OR" - despite being requested several times not to do so:

1. personal attacks, some assuming bad faith: [38], [39], [40], [41]
2. attempt at "outing", sometimes with personal attacks mixed in: [42], [43], [44] -- Please note, these are only a sample. Attempted "outing" goes back months, and Fred Bauder oversighted it. But the user has continued recently.
3. original research: [45] -- Please note, the user has not aggressively reinserted this after it was pointed out

Kindly look into the matter and take whatever action you consider appropriate.

Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this your sockpuppet?

[46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WTF???????

You had better have a good explanation for this block

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Phdarts

PD is doing a very good job with cleaning up some incredibly POV and pederasty-pushing edits on a number of articles. So why TF are you blocking him? I am trying to support but it is no good without expert help.

And what is this edit below? It says the pro-pederasts will 'demand third party intervention'. Who is that? You? This had better be good

What has happened to the Pederasty article is unfortunate if not unprecedented. This group are obviously acting together, and their agenda is also obvious. There are so many non-sequiturs and basic fallacies which parade under a (thin) guise of academic respectability, that one can hardly begin to unravel the knots - though you have made a good fist of it in the Talk pages. I am sorry about my long absence, during which time I lost (through computer failure) much data including my Wiki log-in details, hence the identity adjustment. Like you, I am much pressed for time, though I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). The current clique is clearly not susceptible to reasoned argument, since they insist on viewing the subject from a modern standpoint with the all the distortions of terminology and current social theory. I still may throw in the odd spanner and will certainly follow your own strategy with interest. Wikipedia is of course 'democratic' in essence with all the uncertainties that brings to bear on exceptional writers like yourself. With best wishes, D. (Domniqencore (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff=222250643&oldid=221444762

Hinnibilis/Peter Damian Hinnibilis (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have copied this post to the Wikipedia review site

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18909&view=findpost&p=110208

in case this edit is oversighted, as before. Hinnibilis (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's called a CheckUser block. FT2 obviously had evidence that he was a banned user based on the use of his checkuser tool and made the block - it's actually quite a standard block if you ask me. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The effect is to support the efforts of paedophiles, isn't it? PHD is an exceptionally good editor and has a strong scientific knowledge of the subject. Why was he banned in the first place? Why this secrecy? Hinnibilis (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We're all aware of you past account, blocked for harassment of FT2 - I suggest you disengage quickly from this and go and do something else, or you'll find yourself blocked again. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No way, I'm sticking to this one. Go ahead and block and see what happens. Everything I said re the other affair was proved and admitted privately by Arbcom. Hinnibilis (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

FT2, I have given Hinnibilis a stern warning for assumption of bad faith and incivility. To clear things further can you provide the account for the alleged sockmaster of Phdarts. It is usually useful to label proven socks with the {{Blockedsockpuppet}} it helps with the reviews of blocks and requests for unblocking. Thanks in advance Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The note on the checkuser log indicates HeadleyDown. He was long before my time as CU so I can't make any further comment one way or the other. Thatcher 12:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The sockmaster's other accounts -- most of his 40-80 socks anyway -- are documented in an email I have just sent both Alex Bakharev and Thatcher. I have also emailed Thatcher privately as to far more evidence including extensive behavioral evidence and CheckUser matters from the system logs. I am also prepared to email Dmcdevit, Jayjg, Alison, Mackensen, David Gerard, or any other checkuser with experience of this sock-warrior with the same to confirm if anyone wishes and they decide to review. I am not posting how he was traced on-wiki or any behavioral evidence used to confirm him, due to his history of abuse and chronic warring. This is according to both David Gerard and Mackensen, a "block on identification" banned user. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher especially, Alex Bakharev maybe, you should have enough now to review the matter. I would ask that if you have questions, raise them with another checkuser, arbitrator, or seasoned administrator, or ask me questions by email. This banned warrior vandal is tenacious, and has a strong interest in finding out how he was identified, and often approaches people in private. Which is why Thatcher (and other checkusers/arbcom) have in the past held the detailed information from start to end, rather than everyone else. What behavioral details one doesn't know, one can't get socially engineered on, is the logic. Headley is basically tricky to spot, but often unmistakable when experienced. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the information FT2 have sent me. There is no doubt that the user is a sockpuppet of a banned user HeadleyDown and there is no doubt that HeadleyDown should be banned from editing wiki. The case is closed Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As it happened I have been through many of Headleydown's edits, and through his sockpuppets. I don't agree with the sockpuppeting but he was a good editor on many subjects. I still don't fully understand why he was banned in the first place, except for the fact he was quite persistent in his objective approach to pseudoscience (specifically NLP which as we know is one of FT2's pet subjects, to Zoophilia, enough said, and now to paedophilia. I was asked by User:Thatcher to help out with the pederasty stuff and you now make my job impossible. I trust Phdart's editing, he has been supporting me in cleaning up that article. And if Alex persists in trying to block me this is going to bo NUCLEAR in a way that you cannot believe. Really. Hinnibilis (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not for me to say whether or not you should be blocked, but I can say that your comment on your user page, that "I have a concern about the many articles on [pederasty] in Wikipedia, some of which are factually inaccurate, and many or all of which exhibit a grotesque 'selection bias' intended to normalise the idea of adult-child sex" is completely over the top. As I have worked on most if not all of these articles I will not accept to be accused of trying to "normalise the idea of adult-child sex." You owe me and the other editors an apology. Haiduc (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit]] FT2 you say "Headley is basically tricky to spot, but often unmistakable when experienced. " That's because he is deeply opposed to the views you hold on NLP and Zoophilia. Oh yeah. Hinnibilis (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[47] [48] [49] [50] and the entirety of this thread and this one. That's your "reasonable editor" that you "still don't fully understand". Plenty more where that came from. No further comment about the blocked accounts owner is needed at this time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to certain comments made off-wiki, I never said the identification of Phdarts as HeadleyDown was inconclusive, I said I lacked the knowledge to make an informed comment. The reasons one leaves in the CU logs do not always match up to reality: if I log as check as "Grawp suspect" and it turns out to be someone else, there is no way to update the log to reflect that. I have checked Phdarts myself, as part of an RFCU on Burrburr, but I did not recognize the IPs and there are no other accounts blocked as sockpuppets on his IPs within the timeframe covered by the data. Based on FT2's email, I also agree Phdarts is a reincarnation of HeadleyDown.

On a related note, I think it would be a goodness to have knowledgeable editors look at the issue of pro-pederasty edits, who can edit reasonably, use sources correctly, not simply be a reactionary reverter, and not use sockpuppets. That won't be me, I'm afraid. I know almost nothing about the topic, and I would either have to simply revert any edit I didn't like without evidence, or I would have to spend time researching each issue; time that I don't have. I would be happy to investigate reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry through checkuser for other editors. Thatcher 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Plea for comments

Good afternoon FT2. I've tried to get you on IRC to talk about this, but to no avail so I'm coming here instead. Please please csn you make a statement about the OM/newsletter incident? I'm not sure you realise how serious the situation is and now all people want is some answers which they haven't got so far. Be honest - tell it how it happens and how you perceived it. If there were errors on your behalf, offer a firm apology to the community. If you believe the case was voted on, release the names of the people that supported it. All in all - live up to the high expectations and integrity that we all have come to expect from you. You need to do something now - the matters not going to go away and the longer you leave it, the more people will postulate and the situation will get worse. One final thing - please don't make any more blocks whilst this whole situation is hanging over you - your effort should be put into correcting this whole mess, not looking for socks. All the community wants from you at this stage is to enter into dialogue with them. All the best, Ryan Postlethwaite 10:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks should be left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for replies to confirm if my proposed post (emailed some time ago) is acceptable to others. I can't do much till that gets feedback. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well I'm off to hound the rest of the arbitrators who are participating in other matters but leaving this unsolved, then. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... Mostly because I tend to be open by nature, and rarely more so than when asked to evidence conduct matters. Some of my colleagues may prefer other approaches, that needs to be respected if so. There will surely be benefit in saying what is so, without making it pointlessly tougher for others (who also must decide what they need to do) in the process. I ideally want to confirm with some other person/s that what I will say, will be seen by all as a fair and neutral summary. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the situation at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters, I would think that a raw description of your view would be at least as valuable as a statement filtered against the committee. At least I, and I suspect many other editors, would like to hear from each Arbiter individually who thought that a secret case with sanctions against an established user was an acceptable idea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to. I'm sitting here like a hawk watching my email, tied to my desk and 20 yards from it right now. The problem is that I want to be damn sure I only say things that are seen as accurate, and don't accidentally say something that's taken wrongly and escalates rather than clarifies. I'm waiting for more "arbitrators who aren't so in the middle of it as some", and most aren't round right now. It's as frustrating for me too. But hopefully not long before some folks come back from their weekends and check in and comment. I hope. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Then post at one or more of those locations that this is what you are doing. Do it now, and every 3-6 hours, even just to report "situation unchanged". This would be very helpful. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC) sorry to put pressure on you ^^;;

I would like to point out that we should please remember that FT2 is human as well. While there seems to be a misunderstanding of colossal proportions here, and we are not even sure who has misunderstood whom as of yet, I think FT2 has earned more than enough good faith that he should not be treated as some kind of criminal requiring an hourly check-in to the parole board. "the dramaz" [sic] is alive and well, and we will get an explanation. We may just not get it in the next 6 hours. Any sanctions on OM or others are officially on hold, from what I understand, so there is no fallout that directly affects an editor. Yes, Lar, I agree we need to get resolution in a timely manner, and this should be arbitrator wiki-priority #1, but that does not mean we have to have FT2 acting as if he has been tried and convicted. -- Avi (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with most of that. And sorry if I appear to be pushy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If I gave the impression that I thought anyone was tried and convicted, or should be, I apologise. I just think some sense of urgency needed to be conveyed, which I did. I am glad to find that my conveying it was, as it turned out, just before something was actually released that gave some clarity to some (but not all) of this... I'd rather have wasted my breath than left it unsaid. ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope not. The supportive posts I've seen on arb-l have included (some people were more than one of these)

• a statement of doing a decent job and careful checking with others on Orangemarlin
• a number of moral supports
• two explicit supports of commendation
• one proposal of a vote of confidence
• a clarification that the status of the decision on Orangemarlin was correctly reported
• a confirmation that at least one matter was not carefully read by others and should have been, and
• a fair few "hang in theres".

Which I was anyway. And of course amongst all of those, checking by others of the whole situation. Mostly we're trying to sort it out though, which means most posts are about decisions and meaning, not "who gets what support". I don't like doing exoneration or explaination if at the cost of blame games on others. So I'm waiting to see, mostly. And also, on the other side I want to see what other views come up; there are a few threads to the discussion, hence waiting to see what happens on the others too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

FT2, have you seen this? [51] DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin RFAR

Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements..NonvocalScream (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind you (or inform you in case you didn't notice) that I've left you a question at the requests page, and would appreciate a response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

I have asked the committee to look into what happened here. This is not anything against you, but I believe a moving forward point and an excellent opportunity to learn. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

Since your fellows of the committee resolutely refuse to stick the knives in, please do the decent thing and resign. You do not retain sufficient confidence in the community to continue as an arbitrator. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but FT2 is not standing alone on this one.. The whole arbitration committee had the chance to step in and stop things before they got to the point they did. He made a single mistake - allowable. It has not cost anyone their lives or jobs. It was certainly not done out of malice. Viridae^Talk 11:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What Viridae said. This is way too harsh for a one-off issue like this. FT2 has had an admirable and flawless track-record at ArbCom. Moreschi, please put the knife away for the mo' and maybe hold off on representing the community on this one, hm? - Alison ^❤ 19:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the committee made some mistakes here, probably mostly by trying to do too much, and by not being ready to address concerns or problems with an announcement right away. If I read correctly, however, that seems very largely to have been because of the sudden conflict between your account and Kirill's, which then prevented you from commenting further. That was probably Kirill's mistake, although I can see reasons why he would have done so. If that hadn't happened, I imagine people would have pointed out certain problems with the announcement, but probably that you would then have seen these and corrected them. Hard to say now, and of course this doesn't get to any miscommunications internal to the committee. In any case, I hope the appropriate lessons will be learned, but also that you'll find ways to maintain the dialogue with the community even if it leads to occasional missteps of this kind. Mackan79 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm trying to catch-up on this one, but m lost. What 'sudden conflict' with Kirill? --Relata refero (disp.) 04:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like me a couple days ago. This was Kirill's comment shortly after FT2's announcement, see much of it starting at the top here. Mackan79 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear, dear, I missed a lot. A pity, too: given that I know precisely when nem. con. is used. It seems to accurately reflect what happened on that list. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2's head on a platter

You want fries with this?

It may be early to ask for FT2's head on a platter, so with that in mind allow me to suggest that those who demand it now provide recipes. The example below is provided for convenience (since I'm not actually asking for his head at this time). Durova^Charge! 11:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Durova's FT2 bake

• Preheat oven to 375 degrees Farenheit
• Braise with 2/3 cup honey
• Add dash of ground cloves
• Sprinkle with sliced almonds
• Insert apple in mouth
• Bake 40 minutes or until soft. Skin should be golden and springy to the touch.
• Serve on a bed of jasmine rice.

Can you translate that into metric, please? Also, I'd take this with some pepper and a grain of salt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

190 degrees Celsius, 160 milliliters Durova^Charge! 12:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FT2, since I'm active in many aspects of the ongoing discussions and I've said things about you in "public" I thought it would be fair and reasonable to make a statement here too. While I am definitely not calling for any action against you at this time, it's clear that a certain percentage of editors feel very strongly; they are making those demands and will almost certainly continue. Furthermore, as this case draws more attention (and escalates), it seems likely that some sort of formal action or disciplinary measure against you would result. What I'm suggesting therefore, is that your voluntary resignation (at an early juncture) could achieve several results:

1. It would significantly forestall and bypass a large element of drama.
2. It would almost certainly preclude the necessity for any further formal actions.
3. My personal belief is that this would effectively give you the "moral high ground" in any further discussions about your role in events.
4. If you chose to run again in the next election, I think it would count in your favor that you took this step both voluntarily and early. Personally I would give very strong and serious consideration to your candidacy since I have generally approved a number of your actions (excluding current events).
5. Speaking only for myself, personally, I would greatly respect such a decision and it would go a very long way towards restoring my faith and trust.

In short, I don't think you're a terrible Arb, but I do think you made a terrible mistake and this would be good step towards fixing it. Thanks for taking the time to read my post, which I understand was probably not pleasant for you. Doc Tropics 17:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughtful and constructive criticism has its place, but I think its time for people to put the torches and pitchforks down and go back to their homes. I truly do not understand how some people can be so opposed to "drama" and then spread it all over the wiki like they just discovered electricity. "Resign, resign! Blood! No, more blood! Really, we'll stop with all this demanding blood if you'll just hand it over!" Any rational evaluation of this situation will reveal that lessons have been learned and mistakes have been corrected. The case proceeds, as does the request for comments. This is a website, not a court of law or a nation. Its time to rein in the outrage and let the red haze clear up. Avruch 18:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like quite a lot of folks don't agree with you that it is that time. Or, perhaps like Doc Tropics below, their statements are intended to express their distaste for FT2's decisions, and are stating what they would like to see happen so that we can all go home. Not sure an "Ok people, calm down and lets not be lookie loos" statement helps any more than "ZOMG BLOODZ" does. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but you'd need to infer that because it isn't being explicitly expressed where I've been following this issue. Most people are upset about the way the case was handled - few if any have said that there isn't a real problem to be dealt with, or that FT2's (proposed at this point) remedies were unreasonable by themselves. FT2's resignation, the dissolution of ArbCom, the dismissal of the whole committee, the creation of yet a new level of authority above ArbCom (ombudsman commission?), etc. - these aren't solutions, they are salves to make the mob go away. I'm not of the opinion that we should satisfy outraged people by giving them blood rather than solutions. Maybe real solutions won't fulfill the need of some people to see political retribution taken, but I don't think fulfilling that need is a purpose we should serve in any case. I'm not asking for people to disengage entirely - just to change the nature of their engagement to a more dispassionate focus on crafting a reasonable solution. Avruch 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, sorry to say, the South Park reference is totally lost on me. Avruch 19:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I made every possible effort to be civil, polite, and respectful when constructing my statement; characterizing my words as "torches and pitchforks" doesn't really seem to be either fair or accurate. For now I'll assume that you meant the atmosphere in general rather than myself personally. Regarding your very last suggestion, that we should "...let the red haze clear up.", I actually agree - that's exactly what my suggestion was intended to foster. I honestly and sincerely believe that it would be the best thing under the circumstances, and a sign of excellent strength of character on FT2's part. Doc Tropics 18:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement and request was very polite, but you're an exception rather than the norm at the moment (or at least, over the last few days certainly). What you've done is restate politely what others have been bellowing for with rather less finesse. Either way, I don't agree. FT2's resignation would be a political, rather than real, solution. Only by appeasing those who are causing the drama would this in any way reduce it. Not a good idea, in my view. Avruch 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of people are absolutely thrilled by the drama (I don't mean Doc Tropics) but I agree with Avruch here. To what end and on what grounds would one be asking FT2 to throw himself or be thrown to the wolves? Whilst the analysis of OM's sins may be FT2's - there is no evidence that the decision to consider the case and pass judgement in private was FT2's alone. ArbCom is not a political body who need to sacrifice one of their number to appease the crowd to stay in power. Certainly a little more explanation from ArbCom as a body would be welcome but if ArbCom made a collective decision and have now made a collective decision to think again, I am at a loss as to how anybody thinks turning on one of their number would improve their standing in the community. Fainites ^barley 06:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• You (being you personally and the ArbCom in general) really need to provide a full, public statement on how this case came into being and why it was not held on-wiki. (If the posting of the case was not approved by ArbCom, which I doubt, then I am afraid that those asking for your resignation are justified.) Stifle (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. FT2 has had a statement ready to go for a couple of days now and has been in a holding pattern waiting for a thumbs-up from other members of the Committee. Please be patient. Durova^Charge! 17:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• How clever you are Durova, to know these things. How do you know this? Are you just perceptive, clairvoyant, or have you written it? Giano (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It was written by members of the ArbCom Conspiracy Cabal. Membership requires approval by the Grand Master and Council of Elders. Avruch 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

She knows it because FT2 said so above in the section titled "Plea for comments". There's no call for being rude Giano. Naerii 06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:84.172.79.123

...got hit by a range block you applied, I'm still hazy on what to do in this case. –xenocidic (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Received. I've sent a reply. Regards. — _Maggot^Syn 11:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This too will pass

Ahhh, it is so soothing.

Until then here is a picture of a calm seascape, I hope it brings you relaxation. _{1 != 2} 13:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an awful picture! Oops. Sorry! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A simple request

I think you owe OrangeMarlin and me an apology. Odd nature (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

An apology for what? Odd Nature, do not think that you and the rest of the WP:TE ID cabal are going to get off the hook just because you were able to manipulate ArbCom's screwup. Ask not for who the bell tolls... --Dragon695 (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has had a loss in his family today - please can people just give him a little slack for a few days? It's a sad time for him and I think we should respect that. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry FT2, I did not know that. Retract, and condolences. Your Real Life is infinitely more important than silly WP disputes. Take care of yourself and your family. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Echo Keeper. My condolences. — _Maggot^Syn 03:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So very sorry to hear this. My deepest, most heartfelt condolences, FT2. LaraLove|Talk 04:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Check your e-mail, please. -- Avi (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)

I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on the RFC

As ever, excellent comments, and help to give us non-arbitrators an insight into how the internals work. It's good to have you back. --Jenny 10:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Another "what's up" can be found here as well, for what it's worth. Mostly about patience. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

---

In light of current matters I would like to note I'll be away tomorrow till Sunday midday (+/-). If anything happens between now and then, I will have to read about it on my return. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of your loss

FT, sorry to hear that you lost someone in your family. :( Tbsdy lives (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Living People Patrol

In view of your edits to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLPWatch, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Living People Patrol. -- GregManninLB (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - I made revisions to Wikipedia:Patrols. Please review/change as needed. GregManninLB (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK - Texian Army

On 7 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texian Army, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Mifter (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Email footer

Courtesy note. Daniel (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

July arb stuff

• 2 arb-clarifications have been waiting on the discretionary sanctions wording. There are 4ish votes in support of the wording like in the homeopathy case, with 1 in oppose. It's nearly been 2 weeks since it was ready for voting. Can you please vote? I don't know why the rest of the Committee refuses to go near it, but if it's because they don't want discretionary sanctions enacted at all, why won't anyone just oppose and explain why it's not needed in their opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be properly back in a few days. I'm "dabbling" till then, because the laptop is frustrating to try and do more. If it still matters by then, can you add it to my catch-up list below? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Prospective catch-up list

I should be back on Friday 18 - Saturday 19, and able to catch up properly then. (Details: Family stuff is settling down as best it can. I also finally tracked down why the PC has been hard to get working reliably - it turns out that the exact memory I bought is all over the net as having a surprisingly high DOA rate, so having bought a replacement motherboard last week it turns out it wasn't that at all.)

I have to catch up on Orangemarlin, about a week or 10 days of arb-l, OTRS and other email, and the RFAR and my talk pages. If there is anything else, please list below (anything I need to look at, catch up on, reply to, or know about). It would help to ensure I get back up to speed as quickly as possible. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2's catch-up list:

• (stuff needing attention, responses, or catching up on, list here)

Please see above section concerning Arb-clarification-voting which needs your attention. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the Geogre-WMC case, votes on principles 4.2 and 6. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Geogre-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision

I'd like to correct your statement on the arbcomm page:

Concur with the finding of fact; it was "inappropriately extended" for two reasons: the basis (incivility directed as a result of the first block, to the blocking admin, who then repeatedly extended it

The first 3h block was extended to 24 h on the basis of incivility directed at someone else. I then extended it to 48h for incivility towards me. Hence to the blocking admin, who then repeatedly extended it is incorrect.

William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

I don't doubt that you've seen it, but I'd like to formally point you towards [52] motion on the C68-FM-SV case. The continuing delay, resulting from refusal to arbitrate, of this case is getting beyond a joke and I personally find it unacceptable. Many in the community are as a result of this delay calling Arbcom's very existence into question. The refusal to come to a conclusion, echoing the MM case amongst others, demonstrates that Arbcom is no longer willing to deal with long-term problematic behaviour and is giving a free pass to those involved. What is worse is that even the vote to dismiss is being delayed. Please vote there as soon as possible, because the community needs some kind of closure and to prolong the case further is a disservice to the many editors who have spent time preparing the case. I'm posting this to your talk page as you are a sitting arbitrator, and I will be doing similar on the others'. Thank you, --78.145.83.124 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

See above, and consider it added to the catch-up list. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lunchvine and User:Octivine

I noticed that User:Lunchvine has been blocked as a suspected sock of Mascot Guy (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy). Lunchvine's only edits so far have been editing Octivine's pages, and Octivine claims to be a doppelgänger of Lunchvine despite no edits. This smells more fishy than an otter's breath, so I figured you might want to check into it since you're into checkusers and all that. Is Octivine indeed another Mascot Guy sock? Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of these were blocked as a result of the last MascotGuy case filed at RFCU. I checked and blocked both of them - Alison ^❤ 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

with deepest sympathy

Just found out your news in as much as it's mentioned on this page. Sorry for your loss. :( Sticky Parkin 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My deepest sympathy as well, FT2. I did not know.... sorry for bothering you today... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me#Arbitrator_comment

Hi FT2. You left a message on this mostly-inactive admin's talk page asking him to stop blocking users until he would begin communicating. Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Can.27t_sleep.2C_clown_will_eat_me, note he has resumed blocking IPs (including blocking for six months a school IP which had made mostly constructive edits), but is still not communicating. Neıl ☄ 12:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The related AN thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. –xeno (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also for the record, your statement at CSCWEM's talk page is here, the relevant portion reading thus: "When you get a chance, please let other users know it's fixed and will be okay, before resuming use of these tools. If you don't then the bit will likely be temporarily removed purely until communication's resolved, and - it should be added - without at that point being "under a cloud" at all. But the tools need good care and part of that has got to be responsiveness if they're going to be used." UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Full details passed to the Committee to look into. Thanks for the heads-up. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Would a request at RfAr make sense, given the sometimes glacial speed of arbcom-l discussion? Avruch ^T 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What wiki do you edit where RFAR is faster? Can I get an account there? Thatcher 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 14:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Point. Avruch ^T 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is talking about it now. Likely some action will be taken soon-ish. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock of 91.108.192.0/18

Hello FT2, you blocked this range back in May, but it looks like someone wants to be able to edit. If you'd like me to take this to AN or ANI if you're too busy, I can definitely do that. Thanks! GlassCobra 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Declined. Looks like the vandal we are trying to stop, or a reasonable facsimile. Thatcher 18:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Please do not unblock - Alison ^❤ 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

SSP2

FT2...It has been two days since I put up the first template proposal for the proposed RFCU/SSP merged process, but I have not received any input or critiques on it. As you are one of the people who is involved with this project, I was hoping to see something. I would like to continue with the rest of the template suite but can not until I know that I am on the right track. Please go to SSP2 and comment.

Thank you. - LA @ 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPWATCH

Hi, FT2 - when WP:BLPWATCH was getting off the ground, I added some problematic articles from my watchlist to that category. A couple months ago, I noticed that those articles on BLP Watch were being well-taken care of when it came to vandalism, etc. But over the last month or so, the activity seems to have died down and vios are no longer getting reverted. Is the project still active? I'm wondering if I should cease adding {{blpwatch}} to articles. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Atiyah

Sorry to bother you, but User:Bharatveer is causing disruption on the talk page of Michael Atiyah, attempting to add an improperly sourced and libellous controversy section to this WP:BLP. Perhaps some of the other editors, recently arrived today, might be his sockpuppets. I'm consulting you and Moreschi, because Alison recommended you both in her absence and because you have access to checkuser. I hope this was OK. I think we've intersected before on the Prehistory section of Europe, which now is illustrated by a nice image of Stonehenge :-) Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Found your name on Google News

FYI: I found this on Google News when I typed in Orangemarlin. Inclusionist (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I request you to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism

As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :

• Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.

--203.194.98.177 (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

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

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

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

Now, now, OM, just because FT2 has shown a clear predilection and strong penchant for secret tribunals there's no need to assume that he's doing so here: I'm sure he's merely trying to assuage Danny's fears. It's the AGF thing to do. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mostly back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NLP articles for deletion

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

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

TfD nomination of Template:Blpinfo

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

AfD nomination of NLP Modeling

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

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

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

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

I see your most recent contributions have made Wikipedia Review

[53]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Rapport (NLP)

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

You wont catch me arguing hard. I commented early in the second AFD agreeing with Thatcher, that this was a subtopic easily covered by overlapping other topics [54]. It's a fairly good call. Not only there's nothing there that can't fit into either NLP, communication or rapport, but from what I remember there isn't likely to be much added, and looking back with a few more years perspective on AFD's and editing, I (more than likely) concur. It'll have coverage and reliable sources, the issue on this one (for me) is WP:MM: if multiple articles cover similar or closely related topics, we usually try to avoid pointless "sprawl" . Supported, good catch. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter, FT2 was not even an administrator at that time, much less an arbitrator (He was made an admin in January 2007 [55]). The admins who made the blocks (for bad behavior, then for sockpuppetry) are documented at the bottom of this page, and seem to be mostly Katefan0 (who has retired) and Woohookitty (talk · contribs), who is currently active. While you are welcome to advocate on their behalf, Headley and Flavius must make their own appeals to Arbcom--I doubt very much that Arbcom would be interested in discussing it as a theoretical matter unless the users actually make a request to be unbanned. Assuming they do that, FT2 would recuse from hearing the case and would participate as an editor only. I believe the Arbcom is now taking active steps to exclude arbitrators from the private discussions of cases in which they are involved (through the use of separate mailing lists) which is an improvement from the past. Thatcher 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

(2) The blocking or banning of Headley Down. FT2 has been instrumental in banning sockpuppets of this user since he became an admin: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Strategy (NLP)

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

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

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

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

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

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