User talk:FT2
- Archived talk page comments: /Archive
Closed topics are archived to approx. July 31 2008.
- Current discussion summaries
Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]
Services Link: [2]
Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med
A/guide: WP:SIR, Wikipedia:Canvassing | Contribs tool: [3] | plainlinks: 'Span style="plainlinks"'
Hashes of evidence
Request for Assistance
Greetings! On your User Page you say, "If you need help, I'm one of the people to ask." I need some assistance. I have had some difficulty regarding a group of users that are engaging in extremely frustrating and very un-Wikilike behaviour: edit-warring, persistent incivility, disruptive Wikilawyering, pervasive refusal to WP:AGF, inappropriate use of automated tools to revert good faith edits without discussion, tag-teaming, etc. ... the list is long. I am hesitant at this point to name names as these users "seem" to be in the habit of monitoring my edits. (This is evidenced by their immediate reverts of my edits on articles which they in some cases had no prior history of editing.) I realize they will probably read this, but as I am not yet naming names, it will only be their guilty conscience (if they have one) that would indicate to them who I mean. At any rate, would you be able to offer some assistance? If so, how would you suggest we proceed? If not, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions. Thanks in advance! -- DannyMuse (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Responded on users talk page. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- More secret tribunals? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Now, now, OM, just because FT2 has shown a clear predilection and strong penchant for secret tribunals there's no need to assume that he's doing so here: I'm sure he's merely trying to assuage Danny's fears. It's the AGF thing to do. •Jim62sch•dissera! 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- More secret tribunals? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Joe
Confirmation post as advised. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:57, 18 December 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
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.)
AfD nomination of Rapport (NLP)
I have nominated Rapport (NLP), an article you created, for deletion. I'm sorry, this really is nothing personal (I think you know that). I try to go by content not by the contributors of an article, as I would not want to be prejudiced by any personal feelings about individual - I had no idea you'd started it until the Twinkle script left this message. I'm afraid that a comment made at the Modeling AfD caused me to look at this, and I really do think that this is giving undue weight to an interpretation of a common word which is not really markedly distinct from the meaning as discussed in rapport. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- You wont catch me arguing hard. I commented early in the second AFD agreeing with Thatcher, that this was a subtopic easily covered by overlapping other topics [5]. It's a fairly good call. Not only there's nothing there that can't fit into either NLP, communication or rapport, but from what I remember there isn't likely to be much added, and looking back with a few more years perspective on AFD's and editing, I (more than likely) concur. It'll have coverage and reliable sources, the issue on this one (for me) is WP:MM: if multiple articles cover similar or closely related topics, we usually try to avoid pointless "sprawl" . Supported, good catch. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) In simple terms, I don't have a problem with deletions, or keeps. I have a problem with questionable decisions though. It's good when someone who doesn't have a personal interest in the matter (or matters surrounding it) makes the decision. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are you kidding Guy, FT2 originated nearly all the articles on NLP, plus helped in booting off nearly everyone who objected to this crap being put onto the world's most famous online encylopedia. Get real. Peter Damian (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes and this rather gives the lie to FT2's claim that the NLP article got irretrievably messed up in June 2006 after the POV warriors (i.e. anti-NLP) editors spoilt it. The trail for June clearly shows FT2 and other NLP practitioners complete whitewash of the article. Look at how the article is before they get to work, then how it is afterwards. Laughable. Peter Damian (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- What about the last unblock don't you understand? I have been continually harassed by this guy, or by people he has encouraged to harass me. Please stop this harasssment of ME. You don't seem to able to distinguish principled criticism of editors on Wikipedia from what you call 'harassment'. Go and work for the Chinese, your methods would suit them fine. Peter Damian (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- [edit] I still don't see any reply to my perfectly legitimate criticism of FT2's claim that the article was 'messed up' beyond retrieval in 2006. The June 2006 record shows that FT2 and others completely reverted all the changes that had been made, including the removal of perfectly valid citations. Peter Damian (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- A number of users including myself have told you what to look for, and where. You have decided each time, that you know better and they must all be biased. So there seems little point re-explaining again. Pretty much everyone uninvolved who has looked at HeadleyDown's editing concluded the same, and mostly it's been other people agreeing with the evidence.
- You've been pointed to similar sources. You've moved to co-edit with the same banned user on multiple topics, and of course the last 48 hours of pointed posts. Doesn't it strike you that echoing the stances and edits of someone whose editing got them blocked and permabanned by multiple admins under multiple names for virulent dishonesty and heavy pov warring, is unlikely to be a Good Thing for any editor.
- I'm not inclined to keep trying. Headley tried wrapping everyone up in distraction too, and we know that game, those who are used to him. You need to go away, go re-read, figure it out for yourself, and mostly, listen to all the others who have tried to tell you. Almost nobody who has dealt with him as an uninvolved party is likely to want to deal with him again - whether directly, or indirectly. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't make these veiled threats of blocking or banning. Let me make a positive suggestion. You have offered mediation - your choice, if you like. I would like a full and open discussion about the circumstances surrounding Headley and Flavius' block in Q2 2006. Most people I have spoken to do not remember who these people are. Does that sound reasonable? Peter Damian (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Peter, FT2 was not even an administrator at that time, much less an arbitrator (He was made an admin in January 2007 [6]). The admins who made the blocks (for bad behavior, then for sockpuppetry) are documented at the bottom of this page, and seem to be mostly Katefan0 (who has retired) and Woohookitty (talk · contribs), who is currently active. While you are welcome to advocate on their behalf, Headley and Flavius must make their own appeals to Arbcom--I doubt very much that Arbcom would be interested in discussing it as a theoretical matter unless the users actually make a request to be unbanned. Assuming they do that, FT2 would recuse from hearing the case and would participate as an editor only. I believe the Arbcom is now taking active steps to exclude arbitrators from the private discussions of cases in which they are involved (through the use of separate mailing lists) which is an improvement from the past. Thatcher 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Thatcher, I agree there are a number of issues to sort out here.
(1) The blocking or banning of users like Flavius Vanillus, whose contributions I have documented here, and which do not in my view merit blocking or banning. I'm interested in cases like this because they raise in general the issue of how pseudoscience is dealt with in Wikipedia. Cases like these suggest that those with a scientific or academic background are distinctly on a wrong foot when it comes to Wikipedia. Why is this? What can we learn from the case of Flavius? How would we play it again? I want some way to help us going forward, to make it easier to deal with pseudoscience in the future. Wikipedia has a distinctly higher profile in 2008 the media and in the scientific profession than it did in 2006, and I am in contact with people in the medical profession who are very uneasy about the way topics like NLP and also [Eye_Movement_Desensitization_and_Reprocessing EMDR] are being handled. It looks as though valid scientific objections to these subjects are being handled arbitrarily by blocking or banning, and that could be very damaging to Wikipedia if it were made public.
(2) The blocking or banning of Headley Down. FT2 has been instrumental in banning sockpuppets of this user since he became an admin: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].
This case is more problematic, because of the use of multiple sockpuppets (which I despise). On the other hand, Phdarts made some excellent contributions to the Pederasty article, and I value the extensive research he puts into his work. Wikipedia needs more editors like him. So from a practical point of view, perhaps we should put a little work in revisiting this case. FT2 would have to be involved here, because he seems to be the blocking admin in all recent cases. As you know, I was particularly annoyed when he blocked PhDarts.
In general, I have a profound concern, and always have had, that Wikipedia is not a good environment for academics, because of the various cultural idiosyncracies that prevail here (I originated the expert retention projects years ago). My view is we should be making it a better place, because we need academics and qualified experts and other professionals, and we should not be making life hard for them. In particular, not trying to ban them (as nearly happened to me yesterday) for raising perfectly valid, well-sourced and good faith concerns. Best Peter Damian (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC).
- Flavius' case is not about "how pseudoscience is dealt with in Wikipedia". It's about how virulent sock-puppeteers, and pov warriors who create socks, or recruit meats, are dealt with, following a year long sock war and abuse. The answer is historic, and can be summed up roughly as "lack of patience by everybody", including all the Arbitrators and the admins who dealt with it at the time (I wasn't one of those). If there is a better proposal going forward, then name it and see if it can work. However, Headley, his sock-puppets, and others 'recruited' by him with the effect of pushing his line back onto the wiki, are very unlikely to be part of that, either in person, or indirectly. Nobody would mind if he was an honest editor with his work. But he was not, and that's well known to anyone who checks the evidence dispassionately. You need to do that more thoroughly, and not just assume "sounds scientific and plausible and has cites" means "is legitimate", when it comes to this editor. That's his game. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a serious reality check here (see my other comment on your slanderous misattribution of sources). You seem to be confusing different editors (Flavius and Headley). Flavius is a bona fide academic who has never used (to my knowledge) multiple accounts. His banning was a disgrace to the project. I don't care if you weren't involved. This is an issue for all of us. You seem to have an unhealthy and pathological obsession with both of these editors due to your obsessive sense of ownership of the NLP articles. Repeat: these articles are not your property, they are the community's, and it is for the community to judge. I am still happy to be involved in mediation but you seriously need to change your way of going about things if this is going to be at all productive. Start with avoiding the term 'virulent sock-puppeteer' and its cognates. Look dispassionately at the edits, try not to selectively cite (or to falsify sources) and things will be just fine. End of lecture. Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- You accuse him of slander, of intentionally falsifying sources, of attempting to own article content in a subject area. You implicitly accuse him of a conflict of interest, and seem to attribute to him some sort of malice for being involved in the blocking of sockpuppets of a banned user. If you want to begin a process or appeal for the review of blocks or bans, there are formal mechanisms for doing these things. FT2 has made it obvious that he will not do them for you, so what more do you want from him? What goal are you hoping to achieve by posting to this page? To make as many accusations as you can before getting blocked, and then scream conspiracy and the doom of Wikipedia? Avruch T 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ahem, follow the thread more carefully. I was replying to a polite note FT2 left on my talk page. If you read that, also the note I left on Guy's page, you will see I clearly wasn't implying the false attribution was deliberate. And please keep out of this discussion unless you have something of substance to contribute. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- In your comment directly above mine, you write to FT2: "...your slanderous misattribution of sources." If you were intending to imply that he had made an error, then perhaps you might consider using less inflammatory language. In my summary of your remarks above, I left out that you described him as pathologically obsessive. That is called irony. Regarding HeadleyDown and Flavius, my point remains - what do you expect him to do for you? There are places and processes designed to address your complaints - use them. Avruch T 19:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- What I expect him to do is answer my question. Can you just go away please. Peter Damian (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I've said what I had to say, and you're free to ignore me. From your remarks here, and your "toady" and "arselicker" edit summaries, its clear that you're unable to respond to criticism without personal attacks. Since I don't have the power to reform the behavior of an adult, and you obviously are intelligent enough to understand what I've written, there's nothing further to say. Avruch T 21:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies. Sincerely. Peter Damian (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Strategy (NLP)
I have nominated Strategy (NLP), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategy (NLP). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? rootology (T) 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- You know, Rootology, there is no particular rush. A short breather between some of these noms would not be the end of the world... Thatcher 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:VP_Bug(1)-FT2.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:VP_Bug(1)-FT2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, from the title its a screenshot of a bug in VandalProof from long ago. It can go. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Query concerning arbitration case delay
Hi FT2,
I am writing in relation to the arbitration case, C68-FM-SV. I submitted evidence to that case concerning misuse of admin tools by user FeloniousMonk. My evidence was submitted on May 20, thus over three months ago. I am wondering why there has been no resolution of this case. I am not writing in order to accuse anybody, but I would like to say that this lengthy delay does indicate that there seems to be a problem with the functioning of the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration should be resolved more quickly than this, as you no doubt already know. No doubt as well these cases attract a lot of melodrama, but I would like to state that my evidence was submitted in good faith, and that such lengthy delays give the appearance that arbitrators are not respecting those who take the time to submit evidence in the hope of making possible a decision. In other words, there is the appearance that those who place their faith in the committee by submitting evidence are not having that good faith returned in the form of the obligation to make a timely decision. Why should editors continue to submit evidence in such cases if they cannot trust that their evidence will be considered and acted on within a reasonable timeframe? I would also like to add that, even though the case no doubt contains many complex elements, it does not seem to me that any of those complexities are so much greater than those found in other cases, as to be sufficient to explain the delay. Perhaps there are reasons for the delay of which I am unaware, whether to do with the nature of the case itself, or to do with the nature of the committee. I am therefore wondering: (a) if a decision is likely soon; (b) if the committee acknowledges the delay is itself a failing of the committee; (c) if the committee feels obliged to explain the true causes of the delay; and (d) if the committee will state whether it believes these problems need to be addressed, and if so, how. FNMF (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to pry, but there wasn't much on this RfC when you posted. Was it meant for another self initiated RfC, or was this one the correct one? Synergy 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Prying's fine, I got asked by someone if we were aware of the generic situations and such, so I commented.
New account on Wikipedia Review
Sorry to be checking, but worse things have happened. An account in the name of 'FT2' has been opened at Wikipedia Review. Could you possibly just confirm here that it is genuine? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, if that's not FT2, we're looking at an uncanny impersonation of his writing style.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree absolutely but I just like things to be verified. If it's genuine, he should have no problem confirming. Peter Damian (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Confirmed. This was my email comment to arbcom:
I have signed up an account at WR. This is prompted by the general matters quoted below, and [specific matter snipped]. The central part of my post there, reads as follows:
- "Since a sitting arbitrator setting up a WR account will be a topic of speculation, it's probably worth saying why, and why not, up front.
- Main reasons why, are that a lot of the worst disputes and controversies I see, seem to have their roots off site as much as on-site. In other words the action may start on-wiki, but the speculation, concerns, and accurate or inaccurate views and myth-making may take place off-wiki. My job (and probably a number of disputes I get asked to help with) gets easier on-site, if I'm aware of the myths earlier and if people who have concerns can ask those who might know. Obviously people can and should ask on-wiki or by email if there is a worry, but the fact is that many people won't, or don't see fact checking as important.
- Also because I'm still finding myself regularly involved on wikipedia, in matters where WR users take an interest, and whatever some at wikipedia may think, a number of editors I'm told post at WR are sane, sensible users. (Obviously some are not balanced reasonable editors, but the point is, there are probably all sorts, and assumption isn't helpful.) So I would like to avoid the hearsay that "all WR users are whatever", in favor of a view that like wikipedia editors, they're individuals, and to meet those individuals. Lastly, because realistically, I do the public face of many of the more high profile Arbcom cases, and I'm one of the Arbitrators more willing to be fairly open to questions on such cases where possible.
- What I'm not here for: to spend days justifying things to people who can't think calmly, clearly and productively without games; to argue people out of entire world views such as conspiracy-based thinking; to identify myself personally or discuss irrelevant matters; to get distracted from my core work on English wikipedia Arbcom; to give information and views I wouldn't give on Wikipedia itself, to fight battles and causes. If someone wants serious sensible dialog, then sure. But Arbitrators don't get elected by the community for cluelessness; there will be some here who just want to distract, have fun, play games, or the like - not interested. The users here who want genuine dialog, and act that way... those will find I'm open as much as my Wikipedia work and the best interests of the project allow me to be, and as they approach me, that's how they will find me.
- That said most of my wiki-work is at Wikipedia itself. I don't do politics so even other wiki sites such as meta aren't places I go, unless relevant to enwiki work, much less off-site like this. I just think there's a chance that this might be something I should do, or at least check out, rather than rely on hearsay."
I do not plan to be controversial there or to say or do anything I wouldn't on-wiki. I don't plan to get distracted from stuff here. Rather, I plan to try and keep better abreast of the dramas before they hit Wikipedia and RFAR/ANI, and perhaps to forestall some of the worst idiocies one hears of. I plan to use it to look when other concerned admins tell me of a WR thread that in the past I'd have ignored, which I possibly should read.
- I guess it comes down to bringing the project into disrepute. There's a relatively strong faction of contributors that see WR as bad, and we've had serious issues of outing there in the past. Given FT2 is in a position of trust within the project, it was only right he told his colleagues what he was planning to do. FT2 has already expressed that he's not going to get involved in any contentious issues over there, and I suspect he'll take a lesser presence than NYB (although I respect Brad has kept his postings collegial throughout and has kept his opinions directed to defending Wikipedia). I guess conversing with his fellow arbs was down to an act of respect. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1/ I generally disclose any issue that might be relevant, if in doubt, and have done so from my earliest days here. It helps avoid problems later. Plus 2/ as Ryan P says. WR is seen in a dim light by many users. It is important to me, to be clear to users who might wonder, and anticipate the question. It cuts down uncertainty and is respectful. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment on civility
Hi FT2, I am struck by your post at WP:ARB/GWH, "Comment on civility policy" #3, specifically "we are encyclopedists, not school-children having a squabble". However it is a patent fact that a portion of the editorship here in fact are school-children. Some are university students, some are high-school students (well, they're young enough that hopefully they are still in school). Combine this now with the additional patent fact that (I think I read this first in one of Guy's comments) "the internet is populated by eggshells armed with sledgehammers", and we have a big problem with defining civility.
Young people especially are concerned with pushing all limits and react disproportionately when those limits are brought home to them. I know I did (long ago). We cannot have a milieu such as this wiki where all comers are free to carry on as they will, pursuing any strategem they wish to effect their will, then when someone reacts abruptly after persistent engagement rush off to demand redress for some particular identified "offensive" wording. If someone were to call me an idiot or troll, here or in actual life, I would have one of three responses: if I respected the person, carefully consider whether I was really being an idiot or a troll; if I already knew and did not respect the person, feel silently flattered that they would take time from their life to insult me, and carry on; or if it was a stranger, react cautiously with the aim of getting on with my life and reviewing the situation later.
We can't have a situation where everyone must tiptoe about avoiding certain phrasings whilst free to act in a civilly provocative manner or engage in "civil POV-pushing". Sometimes bullshit needs to be called, well, "bullshit". Civility enforcement should be applied to those editors who react inappropriately with incivil language at the outset of a debate, and those who resort to flaming language - not necessarily to those who get frustrated when their points aren't recognized mid-debate and resort to plain language. Admins shouldn't necessarily be asking other admins to review whether they've been treated incivilly either, there's a big danger of self-reinforcement in that procedure. And adults shouldn't be forced to observe the self-absorbed standards of school-children. Franamax (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I used the expression more as a colloquialism. Some schoolchildren are quite mature and can discuss neutrally and capably, with insight. Some adults in their 20's, 30's and 40's and older come to this site and "act like children". The image I tried to portray was that we should act as sensible "adult" people whose focus is on writing an encyclopedia, rather than the kind of scenes one might (metaphorically) see in a school-yard. It was not a comment about any age related issue.
- You're right about certain problems, but those problems can (and routinely do) manifest in the conduct and edits of people of any age, and frequently in the edits of adults every bit as much as any younger person. It's the behavior that needs targeting. Saying "a spade is a spade" is not actually a good guideline for this site. "What best helps the project and reduces issues" is a far better one. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Calling a spade a spade will often help the project and reduce issues, in my experience. Peter Damian (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- And often causes and escalates disputes, leading to wasted effort, in mine. (Also, people who want freedom to call others anything they wish, often cannot handle being told by others how they themselves are seen.) All disputes that aren't about content issues, are ultimately wasteful. So choosing approaches that reduce them is good. It helps people work with others even if they don't like them. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- All disputes that end up with good content contributors (Giano, Probiv, ScienceApologist, Flavius, Headley, PhDarts, Ciz and the many others) leaving the project are wasteful. Your approach to policing, either directly or indirectly, has led to all this, and is dividing and wounding the community. Fact facts, confront your denial, get real. Peter Damian (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- And can I suggest as politely as I can that it is you who has the difficulty of being told by others how you are seen? Peter Damian (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- The good content contributors who act impolitely are a net loss to the acquisition of good content--for every one of them, they scare off many who would contribute good content, or who try to, don't quite know the rules, and are attacked instead of helped for it. The sooner we are rid of using that excuse the better. There are a great many people in the world who can contribute content. There are great many people who can contribute in a constructive way. We need those who can do both--I think on the whole, of those who could contribute in an important way here, most of them are encouraged by a civilized environment. We lose by restricting ourselves to the minority who are willing to tolerate the present style. Arrogant specialists are not suited for community projects. DGG (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure you did not mix WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL? I never heard of any established contributor who was driven away by a good faith but frank and blunt phrase from another contributor. On the other hand I know quite a few of great content contributors who were driven away (or evoluted into grudge contributors) by civility blocks (that are sort of ultimate incivility if you think about it). The notion of zillions of potential active contributors eager to contribute for the sake of Wikipedia goals but scared by the civility level here is not something that rings true for me (at least in my wikicorner). There are plenty of promoters of marginal theories, funcraft, nationalism and other spam of sorts. Sometimes they are useful but overall are mixed bags. There are power thirsty people anxious for the admin bits. Not many people want to contribute thousands of unpaid work just to get scolded or blocked for somehow blunt message Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a difference between "frank but blunt" and insulting, and a difference between a single phrase and repeated abuse. The eample of how to deal with COI politely is our Business FAQ (which also applies more generally). DGG (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to know exactly who these people are that have been driven away by incivility. As it is, I don't believe this "problem" is a fraction as bad as the other problems mentioned, and it seems to me ethos-worship the natural functions of which, though perhaps well-adapted to an online gaming forum or something, are maladapted to creating a good encyclopedia. If the wikipedian ethos was such that creating good encyclopedic content was at its heart, supported by upward conformity and peer respect, then the natural function of incivility would be translated and utilised as an informal mechanism for rooting out bad contributors. A fantasy of course, but by promoting civility over so much else, and at such expense, we are writing an algorithm that ensures wiki demographics favour (on and off) those with wiki-experience at the expense of those without, the unimpassionable uninvolved at the expense of the emotionally commited involved, the socially connected wiki-parasites over the committed lone content contributor, the cynical at the expense of the honest, the high-turn over troll account over the long term editor, and the famous civil POV-pusher at the expense of the weary neutralist. We should be using policy to design algorithms primarily and above all else to faciliate and increase the quality of content. Wikipedia has enough base content now, or roughly enough; what it needs more than an increase in quantity of editors is an increase in quality. If for each quality editor there are always going to be 4-8 poor editors, then obviously you are capping wiki's potential quality by ensuring wasteful occupation of his/her time and reducing productivity. Does promoting clumsy civility policies help or hinder this? Well, we already have a number of policies that make numbers count over argument, so it's total madness to reinforce other policies that target the natural coping mechanisms that often allow good editors to withstand this over long periods while inflaming their grievances all the more. I feel sometimes that many people on wikipedia promote mindless etiquette and egalitarian dogma so much that mindless etiquette and egalitarian dogma themselves have almost become the de facto goals of the encyclopedia, whereas these were originally intended merely as a means to an end. That's just what happens I guess. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure you did not mix WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL? I never heard of any established contributor who was driven away by a good faith but frank and blunt phrase from another contributor. On the other hand I know quite a few of great content contributors who were driven away (or evoluted into grudge contributors) by civility blocks (that are sort of ultimate incivility if you think about it). The notion of zillions of potential active contributors eager to contribute for the sake of Wikipedia goals but scared by the civility level here is not something that rings true for me (at least in my wikicorner). There are plenty of promoters of marginal theories, funcraft, nationalism and other spam of sorts. Sometimes they are useful but overall are mixed bags. There are power thirsty people anxious for the admin bits. Not many people want to contribute thousands of unpaid work just to get scolded or blocked for somehow blunt message Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- The good content contributors who act impolitely are a net loss to the acquisition of good content--for every one of them, they scare off many who would contribute good content, or who try to, don't quite know the rules, and are attacked instead of helped for it. The sooner we are rid of using that excuse the better. There are a great many people in the world who can contribute content. There are great many people who can contribute in a constructive way. We need those who can do both--I think on the whole, of those who could contribute in an important way here, most of them are encouraged by a civilized environment. We lose by restricting ourselves to the minority who are willing to tolerate the present style. Arrogant specialists are not suited for community projects. DGG (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- And often causes and escalates disputes, leading to wasted effort, in mine. (Also, people who want freedom to call others anything they wish, often cannot handle being told by others how they themselves are seen.) All disputes that aren't about content issues, are ultimately wasteful. So choosing approaches that reduce them is good. It helps people work with others even if they don't like them. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I thought I was good at parsing arguments, but I am not the least sure I comprehend the meaning of the above paragraph. I think you are saying basically that the e incivility present at Wikipedia scares away bad editors preferentially to good. I think its the other way round. The uneducable incompetents and the trolls can best be disposed of quickly and politely. The educable incompetents who are perhaps the majority of new contributors can be educated, but can only be educated by a relatively gentle approach--at least thats what most people's experience of all sorts of educational systems seems to say, and I don't see why its different here. The competent academic types who want to work in their special field need fairly gentle handing too, because they need to be taught the difference between the OR that is encouraged in academic writing but inappropriate here. There are indeed a few of us with the confidence and knowledgeof the net to b able to ignore the unpleasantness. There are a lot more who aren't so willing. I know from having tried to recruit them. I have yet to see a situation that is not improved by politeness. DGG (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- DGG, to get all Rumsfeldian here, you've identified a matrix of (un)educable/(in)competents. You're correct that the uneducable segment should be disposed of politely, but until they are, they wreak havoc on others who are trying to work with them in good faith. An editor who continues to ignore the fact their arguments have been refuted by side-stepping and misdirecting the discussion is not considered uncivil (when in fact failing to respond directly is equally antithetical to our goals); yet when another editor snaps and says "don't be so stupid, you're talking in circles" - that is identifiable and is pursued as incivility.
- Now let's look at the educable side: how many of those people are actually driven away by incivility? It would seem that if they are educable, they will quickly adapt and realize their original approach is in error before they are met with incivility. I would agree that incivility to newcomers is always bad (but already covered under WP:BITE) - but recent cases seem to revolve around perceived incivility between those already familiar with the wiki-milieu. Considering this GWH case, assume for a moment that PD was your "educable/competent" academic in need of gentle handling - then Stifle's actions were the incivil ones in need of sanctioning.
- Much of the civility debate is being driven by bad cases. When Giano says "You are a fool and an idiot" or Guy says "Fuck me, do we have to deal with this shit again", they are not (necessarily) setting out to be uncivil, they are expressing themselves plainly and in almost every case either dealing with either the wiki-educated or the ineducable. Very rarely does an "educable" novice get targetted (in Giano's case I would say very close to never - he reserves his vitriol for those he feels should know better by now). More marginal cases would perhaps be ScienceApologist and ChrisjNelson. Even then though, I would like to see the evidence that it is incivility driving the potentially good contributors away before they have had a chance to get established. I could find a few counter-examples of potential contributors being driven away by dogged deletionists, baiters and policy-quoters - actually more than a few examples of new editors who've left with nary a bad word spoken to them, just fed up with the attitude of obstruction and lack of patient education. Franamax (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- your examples prove my point. Most people would tend to think that first comment an insult. I wouldnt mind if he said it to me, as I recognize it as habitual internet badmouth, but then I've been on the net since usenet days... :) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- And taken context-free, it certainly looks like an insult. Now consider the case where I had indeed been acting like a fool and an idiot, it would be a correct statement and might prompt me to consider whether I should indeed reduce my foolishness and idiocy. That's the problem with "civility" - it's too easy to reduce to "you used a bad word!" and fails to consider the underlying situation. My personal stance is to always be civil, especially because I score as a victory the times the other party resorts to the opposite - but that makes me no less of a bastard in the arena of debate. (And I used to be incivil by Telex, whippersnapper!) :) Franamax (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
| Click to show |
|---|
Dangerous sockpuppetBe warned that an editor has been plagiarising your work. I left a template on their page as a warning to this virulent sockpuppet, be vigiliant in this time of increasing danger to the project. With best wishes. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
user:PhdartsI notice that you banned this user some while ago as a sockpuppet of HeadlyDowns. An new user has appeared editing the same pages, and adopting exactly the same Grand Condescending manner as Phdarts, using the name user:Nocturnalsleeper. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't if I were you, i.e. want to avert nuclear war. NS is making some very good edits, and the fact he has been antagonised by obviously pro-pedophile editors is no reason, I would have thought, to block him. [[User:Burrburr] to be sure has an impressive array of sockpuppets, but I don't actually see why he was blocked (apart from the multiple accounts). He appears to be a strong editor, has a command of the reliable sources, and has made some v amusing edits. So, FT2, don't even think of it, OK? Peter Damian (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please unblock Nocturnal Sleeper
|
Article by RachelBrown
Can you take a look at this? I've commented out the image for the time being, as the uploader is now (widely!) known to falsely ID images. Avruch T 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
deletions
I admire your work in the recent controversy, I share your view of the people involved, but I regard your speedy deletions of the articles on the person as an example of COI. Whatever the merits of the deletion, whoever should have done it , it should not have been you. I urge you to seriously think whether you are over-involved. I humbly apologize--I had not read the deletion log carefully enough. Though you had made the most recent deletion, it was in straightening out the naming mess. The nom as A7 was by someone else. Your deletion reason was different. I don't see how you can say that an article placed by the subject was "primarily used for outing" him, though I suppose one could say, now serves the purpose of outing & delete by IAR. Personally, I think the outing was accentuated by the deletion and subsequent discussion, as seems to usually happen at attemtps to suppress things. Feel free to delete this comment altogether, if you think it wiser. DGG (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's okay to leave, it's fine.
- Note -- This is about a page with the following log entries:
- Admin X deleted Page Y with reason "A7: Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person"
- and then:
- FT2 restored Page Y with reason "undelete to correct and redelete, bio contains a major error, should be fixed in case ever referenced in future"
- Re-deletion of page.
- Note -- This is about a page with the following log entries:
G'day FT
we keep missing each other in real-time places - so I'm declaring 'you're it' in the game of catch-up tag! - I'm really only a member of the peanut gallery for almost all of the recent wiki drama, but feel that there are seeds of important matters around the place. I wondered if you might be up for chatting a little bit? - I felt that the PD talk page should be unprotected, as you've probably seen, but it's not really a big deal in some ways, I guess... are you cool with me asking a few questions and us having a chat? hope so! best, Privatemusings (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- thanks for the chat earlier, FT - we covered a lot of ground (I think!) - I'm still 'doing my homework' on some of the issues, and might come by again at some point :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Voting on Proposed decision - Alastair Haines
This (reasonably straight-forward) case has been open for too long, and has had no responses for nearly a week now when all it needs is a couple more votes before it's ready to close. Votes are required from at least 1 more arbitrator - either yourself, FayssalF, Matthew Brown (Morven), Thebainer or Yellow Monkey. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Crum375 @ wikiquote
A couple months ago, an account with the name "Crum375" was created on wikiquote (not the same person as Crum375 here). The user's ability to continue using this name was largely defended by Yehudi and Poetlister, and it seemed at the time to be a calculated move to annoy the real Crum375 - Has this account been investigated as to whether it may have been created by the same person as Poetlister/Yehudi/Cato/Taxwoman/etc ? --Random832 (contribs) 20:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good question and seconded. And the decision to allow the account to continue and not ask it to ask for a rename should be revisited. However as we have seen, Wikiquote is run in an insular manner by a small number of people, half of whom are the same person. Thatcher 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently PoetGuy admitted in a hidden forum on WR to have created the account. Thatcher 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look real fast, should not take long. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 19:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like a sock of these: [12][13][14] and as the user claims to be the "thousands of socks" vandal, probably these: [15][16]. Recent accounts of this vandal have had e-mail blocked, probably due to e-mail abuse. --Snigbrook (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Asking You FT2
Average Wikipedia editors are accused for sock puppet when the reality indicates these people never really had vandalism intents. Wikipedia says it's rather difficult to tell normal private accounts against the sockpuppets or between normal editors and sockpuppets.
Building yourself over Wikipedia is difficult and has many complicating issues. Have you ever heard about Do not bite the New Comers, the Wikipedia Policy?
Hrcnjennie2010 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Given this is a new account a week ago, clearly an existing user, and it is completely unclear what case you are discussing, it is hard to know what comment can help. I need some more information to check any case you feel was mishandled by anyone. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi FT2! Say hello to Marthaerin1888 (talk · contribs) ;) - Alison ❤ 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Incoming
I sent you an email. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
My response to your response to a proposal
Hi FT2, I would like to draw your attention, if I may, to my response to your response to a proposal concerning a mechanism for removal of administrator privileges. If you're at all interested, you can find it here. Thanks. BCST2001 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your doing, :-) 百家姓之四 討論 (Discussion) 05:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility
Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Ninja Assistance
The IP from Bujinkan [17] that caused the page to be semi'd has moved on to Ninja, and is now edit warring to introduce material there saying ninjas come from Sun Tzu's Art of War. It seems dubious to me, but I don't want to edit war there. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Done. The page had been semi-protected also, until 3 days ago. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
Not a barnstar, but a simple thank you for your efforts. Everyme 15:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
David L Cook article
I want to thank you for blocking IP address 74.171.57.199. I have had problems in the past with this individual. IS there anyway for us to trace this IP address to find out where it is registered to? I would like to knwo if it is registered to a company or if it is a public access computer. Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated!Canyouhearmenow 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- You can find the internet provider whose IP it is, via Arin.net's WHOIS function. (Arin is the "American Registry for Internet Numbers"). It will tell you the public information that exists on an IP, which is usually the business or corporation operating it and who to contact there in case of complaint. If the number is not a North American one, then it'll tell you which registry does operate it and a list of links to the other global registries (AfriNIC, APNIC, LACNIC, RIPE, and InterNIC) atthe end of the page.
- However the actual subscribers' information is usually not public. That's basically available via legal process only. All that is public on this number is that it's someone using BellSouth. Which is any of millions of people.
- Be aware this could recur, if the IP is "dynamic" or the user has access to other internet connections. If needed let us know of any recurrence the same way you did this one.
Article nominated for deletion
I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate clarification if possible.
Hi FT2, we've never spoken that I am aware of so I hope its ok for me to come here to ask you this as I don't think this question should be put at the administrator board but clearly I have not posted there that frequently to know the exact policies. [18] Anyways, would you clarify this for me? The conversation and request at the thread Chiropractor started by Elonka, is it just at the stage of whether this article falls into the scope for special sanctions? Will there be discussions after this about who is to manage the new rules? I also see both, for and against, with good reasons on both sides as to why Elonka should step aside since there are two other administrators who have said they will work with the article. So my question for you is does the arbitration committee assign administrators to special sanctioned articles or is there some other way this is done? Right now according to the side box at the top of the thread, Elonka is the main administrator for the articles sanction. I don't have any problem with this per se other than I really think that she will not be well received by a lot of the editors there if she feels that warning/blocks/bans are needed. [19], [20] this is just a sample of why I believe that she wouldn't be well received because a lot of the editors are aware of these conflicts. I saw the sanctions to the article Quackwatch and the editing there went down dramatically and editors left because of it. The ones that stayed, because of the 0RR rule was then free to add information to the article that had been opposed for a very long time that now cannot be removed do to the editing restrictions. I personally feel with these types of sanctions, esp. the 0RR, put editors in good standing towards having their hands tied when trying to maintain WP:NPOV. Thank your very much for your time and I look forward to understanding the policies on how this works. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- My main focus in replying was to give a view on the question Elonka asked - whether the topic falls within the scope of that case. So yes, to your first question. The "pseudoscience" ruling says simply, that some articles can have extra sanctions applied by administrators. Usual sense applies though -- questions of fair/unfair, involved/uninvolved, those get ironed out by administrators in the usual way (obviously as an administrator I might comment, like any admin, but the point is, that's not an arbitration committee matter at all). I'm away today so quick answer only. I'll re-read this tomorrow and add more if there's still a concern. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond to me, I appreciate it. There's no need to take anymore time away from you, I'm sure you have more important things to do then this. Your answer was suffient to answer my questions that I was not aware of and I now understand the way things are going. Again thanks for the time, you have a wonderful weekend, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
CU Help, please...
User talk:The Reverend Richard Hart is requesting an IP block exemption after being directed to create an account at User talk:91.108.206.230 when he found he was affected by one of your CU rangeblocks. As I'm not sure what it was for, I figured I should drop you a line to figure out what's going on. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Oversight committee matter
Hi. The article List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States was blanked on September 21st, here, as a copyright violation under that recent Nielson DMCA matter. I wrote to the Oversight Committee about the matter on September 26th, but can't tell (obviously) if the letter has been processed. Obviously, if it's not affected, we want to restore the article. If it is, I'm presuming that it will need to be oversighted, though I might be mistaken about that. I'm hoping you can let me know how to proceed with this one. Meanwhile, pending some further feedback, I'm moving it from the current list to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Older consolidated. Thanks for any input you can offer. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just as a note, simple deleting of revisions would work here. Oversight is probably unnecessary. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks! Do you know the terms of the Nielson takedown? (Well, of course, you do. :)) Would that article be affected? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just as a note, simple deleting of revisions would work here. Oversight is probably unnecessary. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
NOR
Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Template:DeletionPending
Hi FT2. I revised the Template:DeletionPending page. What is the status of this template? Was this template ever adopted? After no objections for such a long period, it seems reasonable to add it to Category:XFD templates. If the proposal is no longer pending, please review the usage text of the templates. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
???
What exactly are you talking about? In what way was I abusive? I have never voted for a featured picture without signing in through this screenname. -- mcshadypl TC 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Huh?
I'm not sure what this means: "Category is a useful aid, not a prescriptive concern. ". •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- When an article is described as being "in a category", it means that as an encyclopedia, listing it in that category is useful to readers. In RFAR cases when arbitrators want to say "this remedy can apply to any topic in a given field" the category can be a useful aid - a shortcut that editors can use to quickly check whether it's likely to be in that topic area. We're trying to identify some kinds of disputes with common themes, that it might be helpful to provide with a given remedy in common. But it cannot be an absolute guide ("prescriptive") by a long way, for a few reasons:
- Categories vary (and can be varied at will by any editor)
- Categories are designated to help readers, not to delineate topic areas for editors
- Categories are limited to a sensible number per article. An article might reasonably belong in a category but still not be listed there, because as an encyclopedia, we only want a limited number of the most useful categories to show up.
- The remedies are intended to deal with certain kinds of disputes prevalent in certain kinds of topics. Even if we could say completely which articles "belonged" in a category (if that meant anything), it might still not match which articles have Wikipedia disputes that are similar in nature to those found in that topic and probably could be considered within the remedy, for editorial dispute resolution purposes (even if technically they are not listed in that category).
- Hope that makes it a bit clearer? FT2 (Talk | email) 22:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, much better. I had a feeling that that was what you meant, but I wanted to make sure. •Jim62sch•dissera! 12:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No one likes a tweaker
See Tweaking (behavior).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I know; it's enough to almost become an in-joke. A habit I haven't shaken. Mostly because however much one uses preview, the exact wording is still very tricky to get right, given that these comments are often on heavily divisive matters. This probably says it all... FT2 (Talk | email) 04:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Where I live (California), tweakers are people who've too much of an interest in ingesting this and doing stuff like painting their houses at 3am, etc - Alison ❤ 04:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
RFCU ↔ SSP merger
- Regarding the SSP2 merger: there is discussion at WT:RFCU#Clerk request which you may be interested in. (See the comments at the bottom of that thread.) Would you be available to pop by there and give your two pence? Anthøny ✉ 18:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you since you always seem to be busy, but I believe the WP:2008 main page redesign proposal needs you're help. We have plenty of good ideas, for example see Trevor MacInnis, Dudemanfellabra, and Onecanadasquarebishopsgate. However, the main reason why I am asking is that we can't seem to merge or omit proposals before we bring the discussion to the main page and potentially to a site wide discussion. Please give us some support or leadership, we need it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh God, don't put FT2 in charge of it, we'll just end up with a big wall of text on the main page! Kidding! Mr.Z-man 04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- More seriously, browsershots.org is a good resource for testing how a design would render. (Added that to the page as it's a good resource for web page design.) But I'm not a graphic specialist, so I can't comment on the design aspects.
- As regards consensus, one approach if it really is deadlocked might be to try and create a table on a sub-page, with "important points" down the side and "suggested designs" across the top, and rate each design (0=very bad to 5=very good, or a consensus text description) against each criterion or issue. I'm not sure how you'd figure out the numbers, but hopefully users will generally agree a design is good or bad on a specific point. The pros and cons give a good idea what the major repeating issues and key comments are.
- Perhaps something like that might help narrow down some designs that are overall weaker or stronger than others, and focus attention down to a final few.
- A second approach (which such a table might also help with) might be to identify pairs or triples of designs which are similar in some way (layout, concept or such). In other words, compare 2 designs which have a lot in common, and use "head-to-head" quick polls to eliminate one or the other of these similar designs (or fix one using the other as inspiration to get the best of both). That way you end up with a smaller number of the best of their kind, to compare at the end. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, though I would have preferred for you to join in some of the conversation and give it there. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd only be able to comment as any editor. Perhaps you feel I may have some special knowledge or ability, but not on design and image stuff... the quality of feedback on individual images there is far better than I'd have spotted. The problem is one of consensus finding, and if you want me to repost the above there, I'd be fine doing so. I'm not sure what else I can help with, unfortunately, though I'd like to. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, I think this is fine. Thanks for your help anyway. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom chart
Wouldn't Paul August and UC's ability to grab a new seat end in 2009, when their original seats would've expired? Ral315 (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- They were elected in December 2006, so like the others in that tranche their terms end 31 December 2009, which is what's shown (I think). FT2 (Talk | email) 11:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well?
Can you please elaborate on your message within my talk page? What post are you referring to exactly? Since you are threatening to remove my account, I believe I am due at least an explanation of your accusations. Thanks. -- mcshadypl TC 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I need to do this by email, because there are privacy related aspects. Note carefully the wording -- "...[if] it's a room-mate or something like that, feel free to ask or email...".
- Unfortunately you don't have wiki-email set on your account. (Otherwise I would have emailed you instead, and included the matter that concerns me.) I also haven't seen an email in my inbox between August 3, and now (I've just rechecked). If you sent one please re-send and let me know. As it is I don't want to post IP information on the wiki.
- If you can email me, I'll try to sort this out with you immediately. My public email address is on my user page (ft2wikipedia.inbox
gmail.com)
.svg){kind=small}
Arbcom elections
Hi, I don't know if you watch pages, but I replied to you on here. Would you be able to take a look? Thanks, and best wishes. -- how do you turn this on 21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good for checking as I would like to but don't often. Replied anyway, MBisanz pointed me to it. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
No fun
I must protest, most strenuously, this edit. Jehochman Talk 11:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why? Does it matter? I don't know that user from Adam (or Eve), but this is an informal page giving a list of possible runners and non-runners. Next to just one of them is a note that the user's ex-partners "are livid at the possibility, I am told". Hearsay of the highest order, and possibly completely irrelevant into the deal. Since we aren't going to inquire of all of them, if they may have some past partner who might have views on their current wiki activities, or list other matters related to a possible nomination, it seems grossly unfair to highlight just one in that list; in effect it poisons the well by highlighting one item of hearsay even before nominations open. How do you know that the matter is fairly represented by such a note, or indeed fair at all? You don't, nor do any of us.
- If there is a legitimate concern that any candidate may not have the support of those close to them (and this is just about the user's exes, not their present partners), that is a legitimate question - but even then its place is during the question and answer period and after the user formally stands, and is best posed as a question whether they are affected by such an issue. But not just as a solitary note, unsourced, unconfirmed if accurate or fair, listed next to just one person, in a list of possible candidate names, a considerable time beforehand.
- Erm, its a page for tracking the candidates and helping people figure out who is running, etc, an information clearing house of sorts. While I do have plans for a voter guide User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide that will go in to details on the candidates, I'd prefer to keep things as even-handed and non-partisan as possible for the straight up candidate list. In any event, {{subst:User:MBisanz/ACE2008}} allows limitless reproduction and modification. MBisanz talk 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
open season on editors in pseudoscience
FT2, I just want to give a little explanation in response to this, that you wrote on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard:
There's complete validity in having a view that blocking policy and norms should change. The issue here is a specific block and current norms. What i have done is checked carefully if Elonka's action on your block accorded with current norms. It does, and she acted to a high standard (though you may not appreciate the result). If you feel the norm itself needs to change, then the best place to discuss is at the blocking policy talk page. That's a separate question.
There seems to have been some sort of arbitration committee review of my 24 hr block, but I don't know why because I did not request it, or know that it had been requested, and did not want it.
The only point I wanted to make when I brought the information about my 24hr block to Fringe theories/Noticeboard was that I think that many administrators are too trigger happy in using their block authority, and that administrative intervention is often more disruptive than a certain amount of acrimony in the discourse (aka WP:CIV, in wiki-speak), or an apparent violation of 3RR. I think this will now prove disruptive particularly in articles dealing with fringe theory, and I would urge some rethinking of the approach that has been initiated.
You may, or may not, have noticed that the editor Elonka protected from my so called edit warring is now in wiki-exile [23]. Truthfully, I have some doubts about the effectiveness of even doing that, because his editing was far from being all bad, and he will almost certainly be back in any case (although some of what he said while being shown to the door was deplorable).
In any case, I want to thank you, and anyone else who was involved in the review, for taking the time and going to the trouble. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that my initial reaction to the review of the block was so negative, but it was a surprise to see on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard a review of a block which I had not requested; and which seemed more for my own talk page, if I had requested it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why was my 24hr block for 3RR, which seems like a fairly common WP event, reviewed by the arbitration committee, which certainly is not at all common? Obviously you spent some time reviewing the diffs, and spent more time explaining your views on the block. And, on the top of your review and opinion, you wrote: "(Requested to review and give an opinion "from scratch" on the block and policy):"[24], but you did not say who asked you to review the block, nor the reason for an arbitration committee review of such a minor 24hr block. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to ask for an explanation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was reviewed by myself, a Wikipedia administrator. An experienced admin to be sure, but the arbitrators are almost always administrators, and they don't stop being administrators doing usual admin things, when they sit on Arbcom. There was a dispute related to a block, in an area I'd recently commented on (pseudoscience/parapsychology RFAR), I heard of it the usual way (basically admins keep their ears open and aware of much that goes on, and are expected to be clued in and seasoned) and because there had been questions previously by some users if Elonka's blocks were valid, I decided to give this one a full checkout. And it was. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for the explanation (even if it does not quite explain your writing Requested to review and give an opinion "from scratch" on the block and policy).
- Truthfully, a good part of my protest was over a misreading of the diffs she gave...I never claimed any level of competence in understanding WP's systems of discussion and communication. I did not, in any case, question the "validity" her block because it is my understanding that administrators can block users for less than 3 reverts if they judge the circumstances warrant it. But I was surprised to be blocked without a warning to desist (which is normal when 3RR is the issue), and without any user complaint. How do you know that a warning would have not been sufficient to solve the problem? Or is it now accepted WP thinking that users need the access to edit so badly that a block will constitute a punishment? My own reaction has been only a sense of having been dealt with in an irrational way while trying to make an article more in line with WP standards.
- On particular puzzling question that remains is why Elonka blocked me herself, instead of giving me a warning and then going though the 3RR administrators noticeboard -- which would seem to be standard procedure even for administrators (an apparently typical example being this [25]). You will, I hope, forgive me for going over this small incident at such length -- the reason being that what happened left me, intuitively, with a feeling of something being strange about the whole thing.
- I will stand behind my previously stated view that blocking users is frequently more disruptive than the problem that the block is intended to cure. And I would challenge you, or anyone, to show that the changes I made to the article that day,the only day I edited it, did anything other than make the article more accurate and more NPOV.
- Once again, thanks your explanation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Mathsci
i already replied to you beneath your original post on his page. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Your advice is constructive and I appreciate it and will do so in the future. For what it is worth, before i unblocked MathSci I checked the AN/I and the talk pages for the article involved, and double-checked MatchSci's and Mervyn's user contributions to make sure I had not missed any of their statements. I still stand by my conclusions but will in the future contact the blocking editor. I m not sure I would have expressed myself the way MatchSci did, but I do think his intentions were good. I see Elonka has been doing some mentoring of Mervyn concerning the Law article and I think on that article at least she is doing an admirable job. I think we need some more open discussion involving other editors concerning the copyright issues but I really hope Mervyn doesn't take any of it personally. And of course i hope everyone else is motivated by the desire to find a policy-compliant way to help a knowledgable editor add relevant content to an article, and shows it! Slrubenstein | Talk 01:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- And you checked, but you still may have missed something. For example, suppose the main "outing diff" had been oversighted, which is one of the main reasons (along with defamation and office copyright handling) that WMF created the oversight tool? You wouldn't have been able to see it. Or this was done via email, or on a blog, or such. (To clarify, none of these apply here, but they could have.) So it's worth checking with the blocking admin even if you think you know, because you may not. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to a similar comment you made on MathSci's talk page. Anyway, the parties involved are perhaps cooling down and maybe tomorrow both will move forward without any rancour. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
FT2, you contacted my talk page to suggest I reveal my email address to a person who has made persistent attempts to "out" me both before and after I filed an Incident report about it. And several attempts to bait me into revealing personal information.
You want to think about that for a minute?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- As something generally useful, you may want to set up a webmail account, such as Gmail, so you can email users without revealing any personal details. A lot of people here do that. Jehochman Talk 14:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- To add to Jehochman's comment (he's right), there's a number of ways you can engage in email dialog and not reveal any personal information or any address. I would agree not to reveal them, but for example, you could accept an incoming email (reveals nothing), use webmail and forwarding, or ask someone you trust to act as a relay for you. Gmail especially when used as a webmail, does not forward any personal information except the name you give yourself on it. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Duh! Are you really both administrators? What is it about HARRASSMENT that you two do not understand? Is there a Wiki term for "stalker?" Why should I go out of my way to have a "private" conversation with someone who may later twist it and make it public for some unknown purpose. Mathsci was blocked for a week, and that lasted about a day. That fact in itself does not inspire confidence in Wiki prescriptions for dealing with these incidents.
There is a track record here, none of it particularly favorable to Mathsci from my point of view. Have you forgotten that already?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you want your concerns to receive due consideration, it is best to be polite to those who are trying to help you. Calling somebody a "stalker" is a very serious allegation, not to be made lightly. Just because you call somebody a stalker, does not mean that it is so, nor does it excuse you from the ordinary standards of conduct. I do not see stalking behavior by Mathsci in the evidence that has been presented thus far. I do see you having some difficulties with content and copyright, which various editors have offered to help you with. I do see Mathsci making problematic references to your real life identity, which may constitute outing, but for the moment I am assuming these are inadvertent mistakes, rather than an intentional campaign to drive you off Wikipedia. I have asked Charles Matthews to explain how these recent diffs fit with prior incidents about which I may be unaware. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jehochman, please come down off your high horse for a moment. It is a FACT that I have seen not the slightest hint of apology from Mathsci for his/her allegations against me in a previous Incident report and on my talk page, which were--as you admit--serious and did constitute outing, for which he/she was blocked for a week. I guess that means somebody besides me thought it was outing.
And then the block was lifted a day later by Slrubenstein who made zero attempt to investigate (e.g., might have contacted me or looked at the full record but did not). And then that person was repremanded by someone else for unblocking without looking at the full record.
If you don't see repeated instances of attempted outing, you're not looking at the full record. Ask Elonka. I understand ONE instance is enough for an immediate block, and more than one instance of harrassment is enough to get a restraining order against someone in any court in the US. Does it take more than that to constitute stalking in Wikipedia?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
PS: My account has been enabled to receive email from others users since it was created.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- (Dismounts) I know something about WP:OUTING because I recently had a lengthy conversation with User:FayssalF, one of our arbitrators, about it. Afterwards I made changes to WP:COI to help clarify to editors how they need to approach things. Our community has a lot of confusion over how to handle these matters. I am sorry about the way you were treated. You seem like a nice enough person, who just needed a few helpful pointers on how work with Wikipedia.
- As for apologies, do not demand them. Forced apologies are bad. Please don't reference US criminal law when talking about harassment and Wikipedia. You are mixing two things that are separate. It is customary at Wikipedia not to ever threaten or insinuate legal action against another editor because of something they have done here.
I did not demand an apology. I merely pointed out I had not received any. I have not seen any indication of contrition or deviation from the initial (and subsequent) postion taken by Mathsci.
I did not (and would not) threaten any legal action. I merely made a statement about an external standard that should be comparable.
I never said there was a "requirement" to block anyone guilty of outing. But I did suggest it might be justified, as did another administrator in another thread concerning this very same case. Might have been Charles Matthews, but I don't recall. If it wasn't him, his name was in the same sentence. Haven't heard from him.
Please read what I actually write, and try not to read anything extra into my actual words. It's not sanitary or friendly to try and put words into another person's mouth.
Anything Mathsci wants to say to me can be said on my talk page. I have nothing to hide but my identity, which I believe is consistent with Wikipedia policies, or used to be.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Administrators are chosen for their good judgment. Policy at Wikipedia is descriptive, not normative. Written policies reflect what is actually done, not the other way around. At any moment in time written policy might or might not reflect the actual state of play. When a situation arises, administrators have room to decide what is best. There is no requirement to instantly block somebody at the first sign of outing. It really depends whether the outing was hostile or accidental, egregious or borderline. Jehochman Talk 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Mervyn; sometimes the best chance for peace -- whether with someone hostile or otherwise -- is dialog. You've said "It is a FACT that I have seen not the slightest hint of apology from Mathsci...", but this thread commenced exactly because there is credible reason to believe that it may be possible to resolve the differences that maintain the situation you don't like. You don't have to give any personal information at all to do so, and nobody here would suggest you do (obvious reasons). But dialog to try and see if it can be put to rest? Sure. Thats what we're suggesting you do consider. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
OTRS check
Can you please check ticket#2008091810048421, which refers to Image:Palin nowhere.jpg, and advise whether it confirms the CC release claimed on the page? Stifle (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom elections
Hi,
Do you think it would be a good idea to create an offical "Arbcom election" policy page, describing the process for each election? Instead of linking to "background" diffs/links, it would make sense, to me, to include it all in one page. It would obviously describe the process, which arbitrators' terms end, the ruling on age, identification, the setting up the pages, the voting system etc. Currently, it's all rather a mess on talk pages. What do you think? -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- broadly against "creation of policy" except for matters where a certain standard does need nailing to the floor - admin conduct and requirements, user conduct, major editorial requirements, copyright, user access and rights, for example. By contrast the Arb election is a well managed process by the community, and evolves in a very orderly fashion year by year - it would be good if other pages evolved in such a well managed fashion. Easy to check, too. Not really seeing a need either for a "policy" or to change this. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh well perhaps not a policy. Just a page that contains the rulings and such in one easy place. (So you don't have to keep linking that diff to James F's announcement). -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Happy FT2's Day!
 |
User:FT2 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Your rangeblock
See: User talk:91.108.201.25. User requesting unblock; your rangeblock notes said to checkuser before any other actions. Since you were the checkuser that made the block, I defer to you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well known vandal range (used by the self-named "thousand socks" vandal). Some valid users on the range. Best explain he can't edit without an account, check if he can use his home IP range (the IP range owner is a cellphone provider so this may be a cellphone range or a home dsl range). The other handling would be to point him to the account creation email list, and consider IP block exempt with the usual warning ({{ipexemptgranted}}). FT2 (Talk | email) 11:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I used the {{rangeblocked}} template, which seems to cover this. Thanks for your response and suggestions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Bug in cactions v4
Hey FT2, thanks for the heads-up. That version shouldn't really have gone live when it did; I was intending to do some quick compatibility testing, but in the middle of everything my ISP decided to initiate the 512kbps-to-4Mbps upgrade that we'd been waiting on, so I couldn't finish up!
Anyway, everything should now be in full working order. The tool should still work just as before, although in order to keep the original tabs functionality, you will need to update your JS (currently employing the obsolete ctOriginalTabs) to the new configuration system; see User:Haza-w/Caction tool for the documentation. If you find any more bugs or have any queries or feature requests, please get in touch. Thanks, and enjoy! haz (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Message
Hi FT2. Elonka posted a clickable link to my private message which I have been forced to remove for the moment. Please could you explain to Elonka that she is not being helpful in (a) reading this private message (b) posting the clickable link. I have left a message on her talk page. Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have posted the file under a different name. The name of the file will be posted, with more detailed directions, once things have calmed down. I am not at all happy at the recent postings of either Elonka or Shell. Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
BBHS
Hi. I was just wondering if you actually post the CU findings anywhere on WP once you've ran it. I'm very intrigued to see what other accounts he has been using, but if that isn't CU policy or whatever, that's fine too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
David L Cook article
FT2, by chance did you happen to get the email that I sent you in regards to the abovementioned article. If you could respond when you get a chance I would sure appreciate it. Thank you so much. Canyouhearmenow 12:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
MIPRO article
Hi FT2, "MIPRO" article has been protected and can be edited only by administrators.I am new for wikipedia and looking for help. I would appreciate if you can take a look and give me some comments to achieve this project. Highly appreciate for your assistance. --Wilson0324 (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Domer48 issue
I have a bunch of the relevant information, but I am on a shoddy connection and coming up on a lot of work in real life I need to do, I will email you what I can right now if possible, but will be unable to provide details or answer questions in a timely manner. --Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You have email
You have email. Jehochman Talk 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Your IRC Ramblings
FT2, you have been commenting at length on IRC #admins about the latest debacle. Implying I should have taken it to the channel ops first. Actually, I did. The Channel's owner [26] who was dismissive, patronising and pompous. So I took it to a wider audience. Its a pity you did not see fit to comment on wiki instead of reserving your comments for the secretive IRC. Perhaps you should decide whether you want to be an Arb or a Chan Op. Clearly IRC is more important to you or perhaps you see no difference. Either way if Admins can call editors "fucking wankers" on #admins without disgust, actions and sanctions from Arbs, then obviously the reverse is now OK. Giano (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- On a more civil note, it would be good for separation of powers if Arbs were not serving as channel ops. How can you all be expected to supervise yourselves? Jehochman Talk 11:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Giano. But in fact, I wasn't talking about your actions, or what you should have done. I was talking about the user in #admins who saw any matter they don't agree with, yet somehow did not see fit to bring it to formal attention, which is what they are repeatedly told/asked to do.
- On a similar topic, I also commented on the fact that if there was a systemic issue there, then one would expect to see a wider range of cases being brought up. But the only cases that come up with regularity seem to be disproportionately related to sporadic venting about yourself or your actions. The likelihood is that if there was a genuine issue, rather than just a number of vocal disgruntled IRC-opposers, that wouldn't be what we'd see. What we do see is a level of hypocrisy, whereby there are users who demand civility off-wiki while vehemently opposing it for themselves even on-wiki, and who do not endorse admins discussing cases between themselves in front of 50 or more admins in a channel any admin can visit by right, but don't oppose when they or their wiki-friends engage extensively in email discussion that not one other person can review for good conduct.
- This sounds purely like trying to make something from actually, very little. It gets tiresome. In my last review of channel conduct I looked at every case for some 6 months alleged to have involved #admins misconduct, and most were misinformed, or "blue sky". If there is a problem then I repeat what I said on-wiki and to the admins channel - any admin who sees conduct in that channel that they do not feel comfortable with, may speak up, or contact a channel operator to discuss (in public or private as they wish). There are enough of those (~20) that I don't buy "I couldn't get James' attention" as an excuse. Any given admin or user may be away a while. The admins on that channel - and not you - will usually know which channel operators are around. There are 50-60 admins there regularly, including admins of all views; I don't buy that they are every last one subject to some kind of groupthink so that not even one would complain if something problematic happened.
- I also see a further hypocrisy in that there is a clear route to handling any conduct concerns and all channel users know it, and know it gets followed up. It seems one or more admins will not say if they see a concern (right or wrongly) -- but will pass the log to someone else by email, to inflame and stir. It doesn't work that way. Like the wiki, there is a formal way to address admin conduct, it gets used as needed, and all admins who use the IRC channel know of it. The admin either has a legitimate concern (and should possibly contact a channel operator themselves in the first instance), or doesn't (and has no need to gossip about it). Up to them to choose which.
- If you want to discuss this further, please do. But I'm saying it in simple terms right now.
- The channel is open to all admins in good standing, by right. Not just "some".
- Any admin whatsoever of our 1600+ who want to watch, take part or verify what goes on, are welcome.
- The constitution of the channel allows for a level of venting, as do almost any off-wiki communication - including email.
- Administrators are users trusted by the community. By definition, a channel which as part of its constitution allows any admin to join in, is obtaining a very broad spectrum of all kinds of users who are trusted by the community. If genuinely untoward conduct took place it is extremely unlikely that it would not be seen by at least one admin who would indeed consider it untoward. There are 50-70 admins there (or who can see it in scrollback) at all times of day. This is an advantage of an unfiltered right to participate. The sole criteria are 1/ gaining communal trust via adminship, and 2/ having the wish to use IRC. A number of users apparently use IRC mainly to help watch others' conduct or because they want to check for themselves what goes on, and that is perfectly okay.
- Any admins who do participate and feel a higher standard is needed or was not shown in a given instance, may say so. It can also be brought up in private if felt necessary.
- Any admins who do not participate may choose to do so, and see for themselves. It is an open invitation.
- Any admins who have a concern about anything in the channel, there is a well respected route to get it discussed, exactly like there is on-wiki. It includes "raise it yourself in the channel" and ends with "take it to the Group Contacts if even the higher level ops ignore it".
- If not even one admin states a concern in public or private that way - and they all know the channel ops take concerns seriously because they've it happen - that's a sign that there may not be a problem.
- If an admin in the channel - knowing that concerns do get addressed - still does nothing except send "moan emails" to others, that's like avoiding any comment or dispute resolution on-wiki, but sending a moaning email to a wiki-friend... its venting; it achieves nothing.
- If you want to discuss this further, please do. But I'm saying it in simple terms right now.
- FT2 (Talk | email) 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry FT2, it's probably my poor English but when I read "If not even one admin states a concern in public or private that way - and they all know the channel ops take concerns seriously because they've it happen - that's a sign that there may not be a problem." and much of your other phrasing I really cannot understand you, I know we have had this problem before. I'm afraid very little which you say makes sense even when I can understand it. The only reason that I seem to be the only person disgruntled with IRC, and its favoured topic of IRC conversation is that I am the one who blows the whistle most loudly and often - others do not realise or don't care that their blocks are often the results of block shopping in IRC. However, do not underestimate the contempt that is felt for IRC#admins amongst the rank and file editors. I notice that when one of you (by that I mean the IRC#admins) is challenged all the rest pile out of IRC into Wikipedia to comment and squeak. A pity such people don't spend more time here writing etc. Further comment and discussion with you is useless, you obviously feel that Wikipedia and IRC, and your roles there, are as one. IRC is one of Wikipedia's most divisive ills. It serves no purpose other than to make its inhabitants feel important. Which says more about them than it does about the project they fail so abysmally to serve. I'm afraid most of #admins residents are so brainwashed as to its value that debate is futile. The Arbcom, IRC and most aspirants to Wiki-power are presently as one [27], each promoting, without shame, the elevation of the other. God help the project. Giano (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- FT2 (Talk | email) 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Its not intended to be confusing (sorry for the difference in styles), and yes we have.
- I struggle a bit myself because there's a lot of assumptions to deal with. If I'm not exact, or don't explain fully, someone may try to play games or claim it says things I don't mean. So I feel I have to be thorough, which ends up as what you feel as wordy and confusing.
- I think you're misinformed about lots of things, but it seems so fixed I have almost given up on changing that. Almost, that is. There's always a chance. There isn't much else I can do except point out the errors when they come up, and restate the obvious. If you or anyone else wants to try dialog, or mediation, or any other way to get a more productive discussion going, I'd be all for it. If anyone thinks they could help that to happen, it would be appreciated. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Re FT2: Daniel has been inactive both on IRC and on WP since the incident. It would be nice if some channel op would confirm they have attempted to contact Daniel about the incident through other means. I agree with Jehochman that some sort of public announcement of the resolution would be beneficial. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- While I am all in favor of mounting Daniel's head on a pike on the city walls as a warning to others, some tiny, irrational part of me wonders whether there should be any consequences for Giano telling me in email, "Fuck off you daft bastard." Thatcher 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- In an ideal world, sure. On the noticeboard I commented that comments like Daniel's shouldn't be tolerated on #wikipedia-en-admins and that revoking his access wouldn't be going too far - but I do observe the irony that the complainant in this case has a long history of being the target of similar complaints. Avruch T 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thatcher, a private insult requires a private resolution. A public insult requires either a public apology (if offered freely), or else public censure of some sort. Perhaps a warning or short ban from IRC would be a measured response to this sort of incident. A statement to the IRC channel that such messages are not welcome would also help. Jehochman Talk 19:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- While I am all in favor of mounting Daniel's head on a pike on the city walls as a warning to others, some tiny, irrational part of me wonders whether there should be any consequences for Giano telling me in email, "Fuck off you daft bastard." Thatcher 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Giano's conduct was hardly surprising. If I had logs sent to me saying "To Majorly, who invariably reads this: You are a fucking wanker" I'd be fuming. The comment was made to get a reaction. Daniel isn't oblivious to Giano's history, so should have known better. Giano doesn't just go making uncivil comments for no reason though. I have personally had good, albeit brief interaction with him. He knows he's not the most civil of people, but the fact is, Giano is not, by definition, someone who is always angry and uncivil. His uncivil reaction was solely because he was provoked, needlessly. Daniel wasn't responding to anything, since Giano wasn't in the channel. The comment was made to get a reaction, and unsurprisingly, it was a bad one. Daniel shouldn't have made the inappropriate comment in the first place. I can pretty much forgive Giano's uncivil comments on AN/I because he was unjustly attacked.
And indeed, private email is private - sort it out between yourselves. It's natural to talk about people, and to like and dislike people - no doubt people discuss me all the time between themselves. However, such discussion should not take place in a forum of 50-60 people, which leaks like a sieve, because it is not by definition private, so it is therefore public. Such behaviour is not excusable in a place like that. Al Tally talk 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- For the last year, as the Arbcom fully intended, I have been watching and suffering screaming little IRCadmins running to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement with "Wicked Giano has said this" "Evil Giano has said that" Most of these occasions have been immediately following one of your number promoting the event on IRC (Don't deny it, I have 24 logs without break for the last two years). This Arbcom has been obsessed with civility. Personally, I think an obsession with civility is a very lower middle class trait, but so be it. However, now the boot appears to be on the other foot. However, Let's not forget (as I posted on ANI):
- This is all totally amazing isn't it? I assist in the unblock of an editor who was wrongly blocked. For this, I am then attacked on IRC. I then post on wiki requesting not to be attacked on IRC. A "Pseudo-Admin" then says I imagined it. Then logs prove I did not - he retracts. Then I'm attacked on IRC again "fucking wanker" So I ask James Forester to ensure it does not happen again. He asks for proof. He gets it. I'm then attacked by many IRC users here for complaining about it. Funny old world isn't it? I'm afraid, IRC wants us all just to put up and shut up
- Now FT2, your gang are undeniably in the wrong, and for once I am personally campaigning for the justice I frequently campaign, and demand, for others, and I want it and I'll have it. Your IRCadmins can belittle me (as they are doing) all over Wikipedia, but you, the Arbcom and J Wales all know that won't stop me. So don't you dare try and sweep this under the Arbcom's filthy carpet. Giano (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I've tried very hard to cultivate a good relationship with you Giano - very hard indeed. But this is twisted slanderous crap. Firstly, you know that I am Doc glasgow, since we've corresponded on the subject very civilly via e-mail some weeks ago. Secondly, I retracted nothing. You said you'd been discussed in the "previous couple of hours", I checked the logs and discovered you were WRONG - and politely pointed it out. I subsequently discovered that the conversation was some hours before that (from a time I had not logs) and politely informed you of that. You accused me of calling you a liar, and then accused me of being a liar, when patently you'd made the (honest) mistake. I've already pointed that out to you, but now you twist it again. Not serious, except that twisting facts to make people look bad is your modus operandi. The fact is that you are simply not interested in truth, civility, or who you insult and what you distort as long as you can be outraged and fight pathetic little wars. Well, I'm calling you out. I'm fed up with saying "Giano is an excellent wikipedian, but we whish he'd just be a lot less......", let's call a spade a spade, you behaviour repeatedly is rude, untruthful and hypocritical, and a net detriment to this project. I am fed up with people making allowances for you. Someone called you a "wanker" on IRC? Boo hoo. Yes IRC has some problems, yes that incivility wasn't good. But your feigned outrage at personal attacks and incivility and your demand for satisfaction when you engage in the same regularly with impunity is sickening. There is an honest disagreement about IRC and its capacity to stunt the wikiprocess, and sane people can engage in it, but I suspect that even among those who dislike IRC, the sane are tired of your pathetic tactics. (Oh, and please don't bother e-mailing me with abuse in response to this - I'm saying it openly on wiki.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Get back whence you came. Giano (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
IRC (section break)
It is a pity that the issues again deteriorated to a level of personal quarreling. It does not help to address the problem. Jechochman's point about the separation of powers raises the most important problem [28] [29]. One of the reasons why oversight does not work is lack of separation of powers when Arbs are also serving as channel ops. Indeed, the basic idea of power separation is to prevent the situation when people supervise their own selves.
Further, if IRC logs are only available to the IRCers themselves, it is impossible for regular editors to know whether they have been the victims of an illicit activity at IRC, and therefore there is no public liason function for the chanops. For example in one of the examples here (see #3) same DanielB called Miranda with a B-word (a grave insult to any female person.) Miranda did not see the log and if I have not raised it, it would have never been brought to anyone's attention. Same applies to the example #4 when Mike Halterman called Moncrief "an idiot and a moron". Giano is in a much better position than an average editor to raise complaints as he is more likely to find out when he is abused. But there can be no effective ombudsmanship if this function is assigned to the channel regulars themselves. --Irpen 21:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Irpen - whilst I strongly disapprove of incivility, and indeed have taken action on it myself, I do try to respect boundaries. I have not taken action for incivility of various users by email, on other blogs and forums, or other websites, email lists and chats, even where they were horribly uncivil or engaged in personal attacks. That's because what's off wiki, with few exceptions, stays off wiki. Giano himself is a strong proponent of the idea that civility policy should not exist and should not apply to him or other users even on-wiki. I get the feeling I'm being asked to condone a hypocritical view, whereby incivility on-wiki by some users is not a problem, but incivility even off-wiki is a pitchfork and hanging offence if others speak against them. Before I dive in, I would like someone who has strongly taken the stances 1/ Giano's so-called incivility or bad faith on-wiki is not in fact a problem, 2/ Other users' incivility, bad faith, or attacks on users on other public forums should not be acted upon on-wiki, but 3/ even off-wiki incivility against Giano is actionable on-wiki, to reconcile these views for me, and discuss them thoroughly.
- Understand that I don't personally care who it's about, or who by, and also that the incivility is being dealt with regardless. But I don't like it being used for gaming, and I think there are good odds that (intentionally or otherwise) that's how it's being used in this case. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
FT2, my post is about an institutional problem not the particular incident, and not even Giano. Giano is not the only person who was victim of IRC abuse. I am trying to steer the discussion away from Giano and towards looking for a solution in general as currently the system by its faulty design is bound to produce more abuse. --Irpen 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it is, and commendably you have sought to discuss real issues and concerns. The thing is, it's relying and giving weight to data that is 1/ disputed (of course), and which is 2/ being pushed by emotive rhetoric and mudslinging, which tends to bury rational debate. If there are concerns about IRC, then I have said many times, lets discuss the actual data and reality, and discuss cases and examples and norms. So far the response by those most vividly portraying an evil IRC cabal, has been to try and do everything except that. When I check - and I have reported those cases where admins do misbehave so there should be no doubt on that - then almost every time I find the complaint is being gamed, the complaint is based on flawed data, or that the complaint is released via a "moan email" - the admin who released it didn't choose to allow any form of bad conduct handling to take place.
- Suppose a wiki user did the same - "Oh, I didn't do dispute resolution, I just stirred up by email, but avoided all dispute resolution attempts because I don't believe wiki dispute resolution does anything". What would we do? We'd say "Sorry, but you need to do it anyway." I repeat what I have said on numerous occasions - all issues reported do get looked at fairly. In those issues that are exploited for drama value rather than taken up in a genuine good-faith attempt to resolve a conduct issue, the admin has themselves made the choice that the matter doesn't merit action, but only moaning by email. If they try properly - and "I emailed James" is not "trying properly" - then fine, take it further. But an admin doesn't get to deliberately on every occasion sidestep all complaint handling we've got, then complain it's not handled. Thats just daft.
- My prior question still stands though, and if you or anyone else can answer it capably and logically it would be good.
FT2, again your response does not address the point I am raising. I am not discussing any particular examples. I am saying that:
- An institutional oversight to be effective cannot be designed such that people oversee their own selves.
- There cannot be an effective public liason function for the chanops as the victims of IRC abuse may not know about the incident.
--Irpen 00:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. And I'm saying your data is inaccurate. Specifically, 1. Admin IRC misconduct allegations are not ultimately overseen only or purely by its own users, in fact the setup would frustrate even attempted coverups of #admins abuse, and broadly does so very effectively, 2. Disagree - please cite me an actual case from any time in 2008, where this has been a genuine and serious problem, if this needs discussing further. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your point 1.
- "Admin IRC misconduct allegations are not ultimately overseen only or purely by its own users, in fact the setup would frustrate even attempted coverups of #admins abuse, and broadly does so very effectively"
Please rephrase. --Irpen 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dwight D. Eisenhower used to obfuscate when he did not want to answer a question. I am sure that FT2 is not doing that, but FT2 may want to check appearances. Being correct is well and good, but being perceived as correct is both harder and more important. Per Strunk and White, "Don't waste words." Jehochman Talk 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Will do so Irpen, but busy during much of today. Elections and all that. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Will look forward to it. --Irpen 19:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- With the elections being over maybe you will have time to rephrase this now for me? --Irpen 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what my question was. I simply asked you to rephrase this:
- "Admin IRC misconduct allegations are not ultimately overseen only or purely by its own users, in fact the setup would frustrate even attempted coverups of #admins abuse, and broadly does so very effectively"
so that I can be sure I understand you correctly with my En-3. I am not asking you to draft anything beyond that. --Irpen 01:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Search features discussion on wikitech-l
Hi FT2. I saw your comments on the wikitech-l mailing list about the new search functions. I'm not subscribed yet (will do one day!) but I wanted someone to point out to that list that the new features are being used (I tried a "for now" update at WP:SEARCHING), and one of the examples is this search, which is "intitle:blp prefix:wikipedia:" (I'm using that search to help update the BLP documentation and list stuff at WT:BLP) - you might also want to point out that namespace searches using the "prefix" parameter don't seem to work unless the trailing colon is used. Not sure if that is a feature or a bug. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
I see you're still doing the hard work. Just thought I would say hello and let you know I am around. JodyB talk 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
WT:MENTOR follow-up
Following up the RfC, I've started a thread at WT:MENTOR here. I've been perusuing the history of that page, and it is quite interesting. Maybe that page should be used more? It also seems to clearly lay out what the difference is between voluntary and involuntary mentorship. It might also help if people link to that page more often (the RfArb clarification thread failed to link to WP:MENTOR). Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
copypasted rant
I was in the process of reverting Special:Contributions/143.53.5.80 after blocking them when I noticed your reply at (errrr!?!) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_56. I remember the exact same rant being posted to various noticeboards last week (see [30]). Can you have a look and unblock the IP (I hardblocked it, since it looked like someone might be autoblocked and no other contribs were visible) if necessary? Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 15:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- User:Mod objective uses a range of IPs, so all IPs in that range are affected. The odds are good that most of the editing (and most of the disruptive editing) from that range is Mod objective. If it isn't, or it's contested, or events prove otherwise, then passing the request to OTRS to verify identity would be very sensible. But in the meantime the vandal range is soft blocked, and if it turns out this is a valid user, then we can find ways to let them edit. At the moment, however, unless other evidence is found, CU and behavior both suggest strongly that 143.53.5.80 is Mod objective. If I've missed something you're getting at, please let me know, and if you want further information to check the block (off-wiki to prevent BEANS) also let me know. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nope I was double guessing my actions after I saw your reply there. Since you too think this is User:Mod objective, I'll leave my block that way ^^. He's getting annoying with his campaign against Jayjg... Thanks :) (I can't access IRC where I am currently) -- lucasbfr talk 16:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
General questions
Would it perhaps make more sense to post general questions to the general question page only? "Individual questions" are for questions that are asked exclusively to that candidate, and "General questions" are questions that the candidate has taken from the General List and responded to.
I'm not usually in support of process wonkery, but consistency would make sense in this case—otherwise, the whole general questions system is likely to become redundant and indeed facilitate repeating one's own work twice or three times over per candidate.
In other words—could you make a point of not posting your general questions (which are very good, by-the-by...) onto every candidate's questions page, but rather allowing them to copy your question over to their individual page as they wish and/or as they answer them.
AGK 19:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Two reasons I didn't - which caught me by surprise as I like the idea of the general questions page and fully endorse it myself (and said so).
- The big one is, the general questions page is suggested to be optional. Candidates themselves are implied to choose those they want to answer, and it's implied they are free to let go those they don't. (To answer a general question, copy it over onto [your questions page]...) By contrast individual questions are much more noticeable if ignored. These may be questions that few users might ask (or ask this way), because few users are on Arbcom already. I'm not intending to vote as such; rather I'm seeing how candidates handle such questions, in lieu, and in the public venue. The difference in suggesting that any or all are "optional if wished", as opposed to "will be noticed if ignored", feels important for that reason.
- The second reason is because although questions may start similar and seem similar, in fact they may not be. I might not be asking the same questions to all candidates, although for a number of candidates they're (hopefully) a good starting point.
- Had the general questions been implied as "expected to be handled by all candidates", and the directions been that any remaining unanswered general questions will be posted to users question pages on Nov 17, then I would have been more likely to leave them as general questions. I didn't spot this aspect till the pages went live on Nov 10 though.
- I still think a page of general questions is highly appropriate, and completely support the idea. My concerns were that optionality and 17 Nov posting date, wasn't the context I was looking for, so I took the other option, which fitted well with customizing different follow-up questions. Input for next year perhaps? FT2 (Talk | email) 00:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Makes sense, yes. Perhaps we could transclude the general questions list (in a collapse box, maybe?) onto each candidate's individual question page, to increase visibility? I suspect a fair few candidates just don't know they're supposed to copy over the questions. AGK 07:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This is about the Mathsci unblock. The reason I call your attention to it, other than the citing of the Proabivouac unblock connection, is that people are drawing conclusions from the lack of a reblock. You know the circumstances of that; and I have no wish at all to divert the RfC onto Mathsci, for reasons you'll appreciate. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, FT2, if you have time to offer a view at the RfC, I would be very interested in your recollections of that situation. Thanks, --Elonka 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocking
Hi FT2, I know that your recent edits to that policy were in good faith and for what it is worth I do not think that the changes I made were substantive. If you think they were, all I can say is that this was not my intention and I am sure we can come to a satisfying compromise. I really think that the matter of under what circumstances someone must consult concerning a block needs first to be established in the instructions for the blocking administrator. If you feel that in addition a discussion of when an unblocker needs to consult has to be later in the article, well, I am sure we can work out a way to do both. I didn't see any harm in moving the content closer to the front of the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The only revert I've made is of a paragraph that was added. This was largely a word-for-word duplicate of existing content though. It also greatly changed the point (thus omitting the actual point and duplicating replacement points that were in the policy already). Explained further at WT:BLOCK.
- If you simply mean "we should explain what blocking admins should do before explaining what reviewing admins should do" then re-ordering the two sections might be an idea. Discuss there? FT2 (Talk | email) 16:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Proposed guideline
I am proposing a guideline to help editors deal with a particular type of NPOV problem. Can you have a look? Wikipedia:Advocacy. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support!
Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! And a well-reasoned support, too. Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A comment you need to read
You don't seem to have responded to my concerns regarding Hoffman. I hope you will read this one and say something about it. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Emergency Checkuser
Hello, would you be available to do an emergency checkuser on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ponty Pirate under WP:SUICIDE? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 20, 2008 @ 01:39
- Talking to you on IRC - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 20, 2008 @ 01:52
Just a reminder. Your statement implies you will be waiting for a while. :) -- Cat chi? 09:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing to do with User:Giano II
...Well.... not a lot...
I posted this at Deskana's talkpage, but it would appear that Giano charm offensive (emphasis on offensive) has rather disinclined said arb, so I am requesting that you convey my concerns addressed there.
FWIW, I have been expecting some sanction since the DG block was overturned and while less than enthusiastic about it can quite understand that G's shotgun approach means the collateral damage incurred cannot be endured indefinitely. I would suggest that some ex-Arbs and past recipients of G's ire could do well to conduct themselves in the way you have - things might not descend so quickly into the fractiousness currently on view. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- This wasn't related to DG, and it's in no way connected. But thanks for the note, and I'll pass your message on. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
RFAR Giano drama statement
Your non-statement at RFAR is over 1000 words long. Please refactor it. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Oversight question
"At some point, an edit FT2 made to Zoophilia was oversighted." Is this correct, and if so why was the edit oversighted? Tom Harrison Talk 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm working on the various SlimVirgin case matters now, and those (plus a discussion page I was drafting) have to take priority to Damian-inspired matters. It's been asked once before in a Damian thread, and commented then. Obviously I've asked round myself since. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- FT2, in the spirit of Hanlon's razor, it would probably benefit Wikipedia to explain, concisely, why there is no conspiracy. I have a feeling that the truth of the matter is quite innocuous. For instance, it is well-known that you work on many difficult conflicts replaced to neutrality. It does not surprise me at all that you might edit some topics that could trigger emotional responses from some editors. Those editors might say you are pro-(drop in horrible sin), when in fact you were just neutralizing some anti-(drop in horrible sin) bias. Perhaps somebody with oversight privileges was a bit over zealous in trying to counteract harassment directed at you by banned users. Banned users have a tendency to jump on any issue they can find and beat it endlessly. Jehochman Talk 15:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Please explain why there is no conspiracy"?
- That's quite a strange request.
- The "oversight edit" claims are apparently re-raised here, with the apparent rationale that although not relevant to SlimVirgin's actions, they may provide a motive for the conspiracy she portrays. Unfortunately, they were first mentioned to me in July, long ago. Back then the oversight log was broken so nobody could check it. (I was told it was working a month or two back, have done my own digging since, and have since worked out what went on as stated above.) That's a long time ago now. If Giano or SlimVirgin repeating a banned user's claims would be significant months on, then I'm not seeing it.
- Nothing new has come up in the last few days that hasn't in some form or other been touted by a couple of banned users for many months. These matters have had a high level of independent scrutiny and review. A wide range of people have reviewed these matters and concluded they lacked much if any merit. Conversely the ex-user(s) "pushing" them have a deep grudge, and are evidenced as grossly misrepresenting key points of fact. Some will remember me saying that I'm not really inclined to react to drama and provocation. So the odds that suddenly in November, when this is old news, this stuff suddenly becomes worthy of a reaction, is in the words of another razor, unlikely. Nonetheless, to the extent credible users have asked on wiki (as opposed to informal discussion elsewhere), then it's appropriate to examine the matters on-wiki.
- I'm considering addressing this issue once and for all, thoroughly and carefully. And as some on-wiki and at WR will remember me saying, I tend not to say things that I can't back up if needed.
- I have a draft approach which I hope will deal with all major queries of genuine merit thoroughly. There will be conditions intended to ensure productiveness and parity. I'm intending to post on one other matter for discussion (slightly overlapping) some time early next week (it would have been this week, which wasn't expected to be busy). So I'll probably make the initial postings on both of these early next week.
- FT2 (Talk | email) 04:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- FT2, these are not "claims" the oversight happned, and it happened to your edits, during your election to Arbcom. You say "A wide range of people have reviewed these matters and concluded they lacked much if any merit" - well who? All I have seen is others with oversight rights admit it happened and that it happened against policy. The content of the edits is immaterial the fact remains that edits were tampered with, with the intention to conceal. Thus, there is a possibility this affected you candicacy and the result of the election. Giano (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- FT2 (Talk | email) 04:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've looked into it too, and asked around. I couldn't do it much earlier than I did, because
- I didn't know of it myself until told, and
- At the point I heard, the oversight log wasn't working and nobody could check. I was told it was scheduled to be fixed "at some time". (The removal was temporary; basically the log had no paging built in so it was getting too long to display over time, some 6000-7000 entries or so, so it was removed for a few months this year while paging was waiting to be added.)
- I heard it was fixed a month or so ago, and went back to check this for myself and find out what had gone on. Given what I have heard, I'm not completely happy, but I can see what's gone on and how/why. I'll come back to this first half of next week and let's look at it (and any other matters) thoroughly at that time. I was not expecting to be busy on wiki this week and I'm away the weekend. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've looked into it too, and asked around. I couldn't do it much earlier than I did, because
- I'm afraid FT2 you are rather missing the point. It is not for you to chose when and if to look at it. It happened, and it was an action performed by a friend of yours, and it can be said that it altered the way you were perceived by the electorate during an election. There is nothing more to say. It is now for others to decide if the oversight was within or without policy. If it found to be outside of the policy or unethical then there is no option but to declare your election to the Arbcom null and void. You should be suspended from the Arbcom while this matter is investigtaed by others. Giano (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- As promised, this is about as close to "the first half of next week" as it gets.
- Most of this has been responded to piecemeal in email, as best I'm aware. It's old, and misrepresented. In fact, it isn't your complaint as such; you adopted it from a banned user with a well known grudge and a penchant for smear campaigning.
- To start with the basics, you or perhaps others allege some clique (I think), and/or possibly David Gerard, might pull strings? You never actually asked if David Gerard and I were "friends" though, you just assumed it, so the error here shouldn't surprise you. You weren't aware that (as far as 30k edits and nearly 5 years memory goes) my only memorable contact with David Gerard of any kind prior to the elections was basically seeking help with a disruptive user and a couple of checkuser requests in 2006, 18 months prior? Virtually zero contact prior to Arbcom. When I first emailed Arbcom-l for something significant, in June 2007, the internal response was "has anyone heard of this user"? Specifically, my request for checkuser was forwarded, and while positively viewed, David Gerard's own response was: "Never encountered FT2 myself, fwiw" (July 24 2007). In fact he had, for a couple of checkuser requests a year earlier; it was evidently unmemorable enough to be forgotten. Not what gossip says? So much for some kind of hidden contacts.
- At election, you'll find my support was from content editors and dispute resolution arenas. These were the users who I dropped everything to try and help when they asked for it. Not "higher ups". Science writers, difficult users, admins and OTRS users. Users from Jack Merridew and ScienceApologist to Lar and Carcharoth, Vintagekits and Betacommand, Alison and Cla68. I think some people forget the scope of support. These are the users who need help when they ask for it. But checkusers, oversighters, and arbitrators? See many of them voting? Like most users, I almost never spoke to them, except when presenting evidence on case pages. So much for conspiracy support theories.
- I imagine you also haven't fully checked the diffs themselves either. Correct me if I'm mistaken. If you had, you would have learned that the diffs concerned weren't being used as "evidence", would have been exceedingly unlikely to be felt by anyone with a clue likely to "change" the election (given prior discussion on-wiki), and if you'd asked further maybe also have found David Gerard apologized for the oversighting at the time and asked the dev's to reinstate them within 48 hours of it. I've seen Gerard's apology to Jimbo shortly after the incident, for over reacting with oversight rather than deletion over concerns to do with defamation. So much for a "conspiracy". Anyone could have found that out. I've had bare weeks (from October) to do so. Why couldn't you?
- How did I find this stuff out? I asked for myself, as soon as I heard the oversight log was back, and dug round myself until I found out what had gone on. Anyone else could have done the same. And several good faith users did -- they asked, and they got told where the evidence was and who to speak to. These were not unavoidable mistakes you made. They are the sorts of mistake that come from a preference towards untested hearsay, inadequate interest in fact-checking own beliefs, and wanting too much to prove a pet theory.
- You're also probably not aware that similar dramatic theories over identification were equally badly founded. Apparently some people are still hoping one of the theories posted at WR might hold water and something was wrong there. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, Jimbo and I actually met this fall. Beyond doubt he knows 100% who I am. He's seen me, seen my passport and driver licence in person, seen my work documentation, seen my resume, knows my work and business. I've met at least one other senior WMF employee, who has also seen the same. We discussed emails that only he and I know, at that meeting, and I can quote (and have on arbcom email) details such as non-wiki people known to Jimbo who were present during that meeting, and the payment of the bill for lunch. So that conspiracy is pretty much dead, too.
- Other stuff that some never cared to check is, why exactly this took place, which has nothing to do with the election at all. Let's spell this out:
- While not the best decision, it turned out it was a good faith attempt to handle a genuine problem caused by a banned user, for which Oversight was the wrong tool.
- The background has not been publicized, mainly since until now nobody on-wiki that I'm aware of, has asked me for it. Those who have asked have done so in private and been answered in full. I have no objection to giving it now, and will do so in a few days, like I said (once I get permission from those involved to cite the relevant evidence and reference the relevant emails publicly). I don't expect to have problems getting that permission.
- Worth noting for those who have the full facts: the oversighter took no action when the diff was linked, or for a time afterwards. Action was only taken beyond that point - when an actual defamation risk that might implicate the wiki, had arisen.
- The mistake was made due to the perceived pressures of the situation and risk of the wiki itself being used for defamation that possibly could not be addressed at a later stage. Not due to "evidence"; that part was already long closed by communal assent and the diff did not add a thing of any significance to what was known.
- The oversighter volunteered full disclosure and apology for this privately to Jimbo at the time (or very shortly after); I've seen a copy of this. It turns out he also asked if the removal could be reversed almost immediately after, when the underlying problem that led to it had been resolved by a (non-Arbcom) administrator with the appropriate know-how.
- Jimbo is aware of the rest of the background and the other background that's not touched on here.
- I first became aware by an "off the cuff" single question in July, that couldn't be answered (Oversight log broken). I remembered the matter and when I was told the full log was back, went digging and found answers. I was first asked on-wiki about this last week. This is an interim response, pending full discussion and evidence, once I have permissions from all involved. Someone had better nudge Peter Damian - his permission will be needed too, and I'll be asking Jimbo, David Gerard and about 4-6 other users. For my part I state simply, all emails, chats, and on- and off-wiki posts, logs and correspondence of any kind, related to either Damian's oversight concerns or the Arbcom election, may be cited by anyone on-wiki if done fairly (not out of context) and if deemed by uninvolved admins to help the community (if theres doubt), provided they in return grant permission to cite any relevant matching dialog of theirs related to it. I look for others to commit likewise.
- Further details to fill the gaps in this and provide the hard evidence, as I said, in a few days.
- FT2, one could drive a coach and horses through the middle of the above, but I doubt anyone has the energy, but for a start here are 3 questions:
- "also have found David Gerard apologized for the oversighting at the time and asked the dev's to reinstate them within 48 hours of it. I've seen Gerard's apology to Jimbo shortly after the incident." How would I "also have found" where is the diff for them? and
- why exactly if the oversight was so harmeless why was David Gerard personally appolagising to Jimbo for it?
- Is it true that Gerard, was advocating you have obersight rights before the election? Giano (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- As soon as I was told that some edits had been oversighted, I questioned whether this was appropriate. David quickly agreed with me and apologized for it. It's not about the oversight being harmful, it's about an error being made.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you promote yourself above arbcom now?
I see, so I am wondering now if you think you are Jimbo Wales...that your blocks are not reversible...that if indeed someone dares to reverse you, especially if they have already been the target of a prolonged, persistant campaign of hate because they stand guard where others rarely dare, you'll shove as big a shaft down their throats as possible. Did you not stop to consider the history of Giano...that his retaliations over Gerard's block would be both forceful and unbecoming? Was there anything else to expect? And...your history with Giano is one that is circumspect as far as you being the next one to issue him a block. This is a wee bit scary for mere peons like myself...dare I ever go against what the major powers that be want, where does that leave myself and those who are even less "tenured"? SlimVirgin makes mistakes, she also places herself in harms way in article space, in policy space and has endured more online Wikipedia and offline harassment than anyone else I can think of. She is also one of the ones others can count on for defense whenever they are being harassed in real life. The biggest problem with this situation now isn't that SlimVirgin was "right" or "wrong" to revert your block on Giano...but that you decided to commence an enforcement/case/whatever you want to call it in RETALIATION for her reverting YOU, a sitting member of arbcom. This is just plain scary...and makes me wonder if I need to go back to my corner and let the power junkies run this website, or start my feuds up again and call a spade a spade when I see it, as I do here, not knowing what powerful enemies I might make if I dare go against their demands.--MONGO 07:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, MONGO. We don't play games like you suggest with status. There are 1600 or so administrators. There are many who will "place themselves" in difficult places, and do so without doing the wrong things SlimVirgin is repeatedly evidenced as having done. If SlimVirgin after 4 arbcom cases cannot figure out to do right by the community with the tools, then she like any may be called to account for it. Two other admins both wanted to take up an RFAR over this; one had gone so far as to draft their statement. The latter on reading mine (which I'd already drafted) said to go ahead as it was more precisely worded.
- You need to check your history carefully -- compare and contrast Geogre, who also has used admin tools to help Giano, and whom at RFAR I voted against the initial proposala of sanction because they were too severe. Why the difference? SlimVirgin has been called to account 4 times and blatantly was continuing; Geogre has not. This is nothing to do with personality, and everything to do with assessing harm to the project. I'm sorry if that perspective isn't one you agree with. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think I can guess which two other admins wanted to see some sanctions. The other cases Slim has been involved in...most of those look exactly like what I was trying to suggest above. Perhaps I have never been under the wrath of Giano...which, I would go so far as to say, would be easy compared to the hate mongering I have endured at the hands of 9/11 CTers. Hence my suggestions numerous times to get over it and get over ourselves. As far as the mythology that SlimVirgin is a "problem admin"...much (but not all) of that has been perpetuated by those that have, as I mentioned, been misusing Wikipedia and offsite venues as a place for building that illusion. Wikipedia will go on whether you, me or SlimVirgin edits after tomorrow...but that is simply not the point. I know what it feels like to have a band of fools trying to do whatever they can to "wreck" a Wikipedia career...and until one in particular ceased editing after being told that his SPA contributions were unhelpful and he was topic banned, I had no rest from that guy. Slim, on the other hand, has been under a constant state of attack, not by a few, but by a lot of, what have oftentimes been a conglomeration of editors who have been determined to "get her". I admit that not every compliant about her is invalid. Decoding the complaints of validity from those that are being presented by jackasses is easy...if one cares to do so. Rash decisions to do something just because the loudest voices are those with an axe to grind is worrisome. I'll not have to worry about the repercussions of overturning your admin actions anyway since I'll never be an admin again....lucky me I guess.--MONGO 09:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, you probably wouldn't guess who the two were. If they want to say, they will. Since I care less about "mythology" or "politics", and I'm part of no clique, it's easy, I evaluate cases for myself, based on behaviors I see, and pay little interest to hearsay and "received wisdom" about who some may claim are "good" or "bad" users. I don't have knowledge that SlimVirgin is a "problem admin" in some people's eyes, I do have knowledge she acted very poorly in an Arbitration Enforcement matter, and in a way that would damage enforcement on other cases. So the "others" you refer to can rumor about her all they like, for or against. If any of them wanted me to take up their banner, or to "get" her (or anyone), they'd better be prepared to show me diffs and evidence that I 1/ agree with, and 2/ concur shows a current, active problem requiring that action. They'd also better be prepared that I might decide the best solution is initially discussion, to check what's up for myself. In this case obviously it was not my view that lesser handling would resolve the problem. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- The message arbcom is sending with this action is that even well tenured admins who reverse your admin actions is going to have hell to pay for it.--MONGO 18:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Rewrite that as "Even well tenured admins who habitually disregard significant communal norms and standards will eventually have to answer for it", and I'd agree. People who've reversed an admin action (mine, anyones, doesnt matter whose) with good reasons, trying to follow good practice, tend to get respect. The message here is high admin standards, not partiality. This could have been any admin, on any side, of any dispute, who decided "I know I've been told to heed conduct norms but let's not do so". The community is a fickle thing, but while norms exist that have a high "buy-in", then we are each expected to follow their agreed leads in almost all cases. Most do. In this case, one didn't. The case was picked up by numerous admins, rather than wheel warring or squabbling, it was passed to arbitration, and cross referenced to an exceptional number of past cases by the same admin where standards were poor, and decided.
- The message arbcom is sending with this action is that even well tenured admins who reverse your admin actions is going to have hell to pay for it.--MONGO 18:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, you probably wouldn't guess who the two were. If they want to say, they will. Since I care less about "mythology" or "politics", and I'm part of no clique, it's easy, I evaluate cases for myself, based on behaviors I see, and pay little interest to hearsay and "received wisdom" about who some may claim are "good" or "bad" users. I don't have knowledge that SlimVirgin is a "problem admin" in some people's eyes, I do have knowledge she acted very poorly in an Arbitration Enforcement matter, and in a way that would damage enforcement on other cases. So the "others" you refer to can rumor about her all they like, for or against. If any of them wanted me to take up their banner, or to "get" her (or anyone), they'd better be prepared to show me diffs and evidence that I 1/ agree with, and 2/ concur shows a current, active problem requiring that action. They'd also better be prepared that I might decide the best solution is initially discussion, to check what's up for myself. In this case obviously it was not my view that lesser handling would resolve the problem. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think I can guess which two other admins wanted to see some sanctions. The other cases Slim has been involved in...most of those look exactly like what I was trying to suggest above. Perhaps I have never been under the wrath of Giano...which, I would go so far as to say, would be easy compared to the hate mongering I have endured at the hands of 9/11 CTers. Hence my suggestions numerous times to get over it and get over ourselves. As far as the mythology that SlimVirgin is a "problem admin"...much (but not all) of that has been perpetuated by those that have, as I mentioned, been misusing Wikipedia and offsite venues as a place for building that illusion. Wikipedia will go on whether you, me or SlimVirgin edits after tomorrow...but that is simply not the point. I know what it feels like to have a band of fools trying to do whatever they can to "wreck" a Wikipedia career...and until one in particular ceased editing after being told that his SPA contributions were unhelpful and he was topic banned, I had no rest from that guy. Slim, on the other hand, has been under a constant state of attack, not by a few, but by a lot of, what have oftentimes been a conglomeration of editors who have been determined to "get her". I admit that not every compliant about her is invalid. Decoding the complaints of validity from those that are being presented by jackasses is easy...if one cares to do so. Rash decisions to do something just because the loudest voices are those with an axe to grind is worrisome. I'll not have to worry about the repercussions of overturning your admin actions anyway since I'll never be an admin again....lucky me I guess.--MONGO 09:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- You need to stop thinking of this as "long standing admin censured", or martyrdom -- and think in terms of "long standing admin with habitual poor standards finally told 'enough's enough' and made clearer that change really was expected". FT2 (Talk | email) 20:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen it mentioned that SlimVirgin could have gotten someone else to reverse your block...and of course, someone less involved in Gianos affairs than you could have been requested to block him. I also see that, as you mentioned, two other admins were prepared to file another case regarding this issue, yet you, the person who had their block reversed, filed the petition against SlimVirgin...and, you are on arbcom. This is a can of worms.--MONGO 05:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- You need to stop thinking of this as "long standing admin censured", or martyrdom -- and think in terms of "long standing admin with habitual poor standards finally told 'enough's enough' and made clearer that change really was expected". FT2 (Talk | email) 20:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) More specifically, where you are with me - a lot safer than you think. Because if you aren't doing recognizable harm to the project, and have done nothing damaging yourself on a given matter, then I'll actively protect you against others' unjust claims and bad admin blocks, as I did the near-banned Rambutan/Porcupine whom I unblocked and forcibly told off the blocking admin for unjustified blocking when most didn't know, or didn't care to check. If you are disruptive but can be reasoned with I will be patient and try to resolve it by dispute resolution even if you are attacking the heck out of me at the time, as I did in offering Peter Damian mediation around 3 months ago (!). If you can't be reasoned with and action is needed I'll try to find the minimum action that will help you to understand it has to end, as I did Geogre in his case. If none of that works I will not be redirecting you to clowns, or blocking "out of process", but will try to sadly take the action I feel needed, with respect, and waiting for you to understand that change is needed, right up till the point the decision's made.
- I can't be everywhere, I can't handle all of the many cases where stuff goes wrong -- god knows Wikipedia is vast already -- but a small range of them, I can and will, like any admin. I prioritize in doing so, to avoid those which the wider community is likely to handle anyway. In between I'll be in the background backing up communal decisions, improving matters. Why? So editors who "just want to edit well", can have a better experience and less "downtime" and discouragement due to disruptive users.
- If you feel there is wrong done, I'll explain the basics of the decision openly so others can judge it; if a bad call is made at RFAR I won't be afraid to try and catch what I see as errors of principle; if it's a community matter such as Poetlister or Archtransit I'll be open with the community as much as I'm able. If an admin is misusing the tools or their "weight", or misbehaving, and nobody else feels able to say so, I will be willing to look at the case and consider how best to reduce any problems arising, and take any backlash involved in that decision.
- If there is an Arbcom case where I am involved, I will actively have a stand up battle within Arbcom if it's needed, to ensure even my attacker has the most neutral hearing, as I did with Peter Damian's case in May, to ensure the deliberations of others would not be circulated to myself. I had to forcefully demand on that some 3 or 4 times. But I did.
- That is your protection. And yes it is that direct and that ruthlessly neutral. Mostly, like any decisions any admin makes, they are subject to at least some overview - in this case for example the community had made its view known before very clearly, so it wasn't hard to figure out at the time. I'm sorry some will be upset that my views don't always match their wishes. But that's inevitable in most disputes at this level. Many others will not be. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with Mongo on one thing: I think the arbiters are too inclined to address issues where they're involved vs. where they're not. He may think it's retaliation; I think it's a simple (though somewhat ironic) reluctance to get in the middle of other's disputes, when much of the committee seems to continue to see their role as "taking sides". Accordingly, blocks of their own are seen as well-controlled scenarios perfect for sending messages, whereas the complexities in other cases are much more visible, often so much as to overwhelm the committee. It's not so much more favorable of a view, since certainly I think it reflects a mistaken approach on whole, regardless of intentions. One effect is to make it more difficult to effectively critique or support an individual decision. Mackan79 (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's ever had trouble being able to criticize my stances without fear. We may not agree, but I've never taken it badly when people do so, even bad faith criticism is responded to by discourse. Attacking others, damaging the project - that's different. Then it's not okay and any admin should consider action if it doesn't look like it'll quickly stop. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- If a block is necessary, it should not be a problem to find another admin willing to place it. Asking somebody else to make a difficult block, in order to help avoid goading a productive contributor who perceives a conflict with you, is a smart move. It is not shirking one's duties to ask for help. Should such a request be necessary, I recommend making it in the open. Many times people have contacted me for administrative services via email, and I have told them to leave a note on my talk page. Jehochman Talk 16:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- In theory, Jehochman. Excellent theory. And usually correct. Has anyone drawn up a spreadsheet and checked what percentage of admins who apply or lift blocks wind up at RFAR? Adding up actual cases, requested but not opened cases, and case clarifications, I daresay for the last year at least the blocks and unblocks applied to one particular editor are most likely to head to arbitration. Any use of the tools at all with regard to that editor is apt to be controversial, which likely discourages a large number of admins from going anywhere near the matter. DurovaCharge! 20:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Unanswered questions
Well, the case is closed now, but I hope you will still give careful consideration to my questions here and here. My polite requests made to the committee in private got me nowhere. Somehow there's something here that doesn't smell quite right. ElinorD (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, you're asking about the citing of other cases in the recent motion.
- What's missing here is this: It's not about past cases. It's about the general expectation of high standards of admin conduct and judgement, and how we may address them if they lapse. In this case there had been both other complaints, and other prior cases - a "striking" or exceptional number. The rest is pure backdrop. The relevance of the past citations is not whether SV did right or wrong, but that for whatever reason, she was given formal instruction to improve her general conduct and quality, especially if making claims on other matters, and she failed to do so.
- Whether I (you, anyone) agree with the decision in a given case or not, an admin was told multiple times in multiple cases, and in specific detail, "your general standards are not high enough". It is clear here, that in fact the admin did not heed those words, despite them being said multiple times. In this incident, the unacceptable standards led to problems addressed by yet another case. High standards are expected of administrators in their actions and interventions, and this was conspicuously lacking. That is their sole relevance - as backdrop that in the past she has formally been told "do better" multiple times, and still her standards of admin conduct seem unacceptably poor.
- The significance is that the admin did not bring her behavior up to standard despite being formally told to improve on multiple occasions, but continued (eg, as seen in this case) to evidence very poor behavior and judgement. So therefore mere asking or warning may be felt unlikely to procure change. The fact she was formally told "your general standards are too low" in the past, is what is being evidencing by citing them.
Are you saying that if you are a judge in a court of law, and the accused has previous convictions and you know AS A FACT that the last one was unjust, you go ahead and hand out a more severe sentence on the grounds that he was in trouble with the law before? Look, I'm going to be very direct. A case was brought because SlimVirgin made accusations against Lar on the mailing list. The committee was supposed to look into two things - the appropriateness of making the accusations, and the accuracy of the accusations themselves. Now the general finding was that she should have followed dispute resolution. The issue of whether or not the accusations she made against Lar were accurate was ignored at first, and then followed by half-hearted, rather insulting (to me) implications that I might have been making statements to Lar's wife and she might have been counselling me[31] while I in good faith mistakenly thought we didn't even know each other and had had zero interaction! Here are some questions for you:
- Did you or did you not receive copies of two emails SlimVirgin sent to ArbCom (cc'd to me) on 27 October, with copies of correspondence showing her attempts to go through the proper channels, in one of which emails she says "I'm submitting this as evidence that I did try to proceed with an Ombudsman complaint, contrary to the implication of FT2 on the proposed decision page that I did not try to pursue dispute resolutionbefore posting to wikiEN-l."? If you did receive them, are you satisfied that the committee made the right decision in leaving an official finding that Slim had not first attempted to follow the proper process?
- From your reading of the only two emails that I sent Lar between the date of the usercheck and the date that he posted on the private CU mailing list that I had admitted to him that the check was justified, are you satisfied that Lar was not misleading his fellow CUs when he made that statement? If you are not satisfied, do you believe that the case was closed with the correct outcome?
- Would you be willing to stake your own integrity and fitness to serve as an arb on the sincerity of the answers you give to the first two questions?
ElinorD (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying (apologies for the very crude and uncouth analogy) that if someone seems to have grafittied and thrown rocks at windows, then thats the case to be assessed. But if I then note they were formally warned by a court "you need to improve your conduct" on multiple occasions, and that's on the record, I don't need to reopen those cases, reopen their decision-making, and reassess if those warnings were each based on good cause back then. What's notable is that the warnings were given. If the current case did find wrongdoing, then it would be a serious aggravating factor to also find that past warnings had been given, yet not heeded.
- In wiki terms, we aren't a "court of law"; it would be evidence that warnings (as deterrence and encouragement to change) did not apparently get the desired response. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sticky Parkin. Yes, FT2, I feel I deserve an answer to my questions. Okay, let's stick to your analogy, and pretend (I'm sure Slim will forgive me for this) that Slim wrote grafitti, and threw rocks at windows, or at least that she seems to have done it. She comes before the courts. I agree with you that the courts should just look at the evidence for that case, though if they have evidence of a possibility that someone else may have been behaving badly (your allegedly "involved" block of Giano?) they should, if they're interested in justice rather than insisting that forms are filled in correctly, address that as well - either to deal with the other possibly guilty parties, or to lessen the penalty of the current accusee, because of extenuating circumstances. But yes, I'll accept that there's no need in such cases to start reopening previous cases on the off chance that one of them might have involved a miscarriage of justice.
- However, what I am suggesting here is that you, the filing party, knew that a previous ruling was wrong, and that the judges in this case knew that a previous ruling was wrong. That's why I asked you if you received evidence that SlimVirgin had tried to raise the matter privately before going public, despite the implication in the final ruling that she didn't. That's why I asked you to give me some kind of explanation of what to me and my friends seems like unquestionable evidence that Lar lied to his fellow CUs (telling them of my supposed "friendship" with his wife, whom I don't know at all, and telling them, after I had said I couldn't see how that check was justified, that the affected editor had admitted to him that it was justified), and that the arbs, in full possession of these facts, deliberately chose to ignore them (on the pretext of protecting my privacy). You won't answer. I don't blame you. There is no convincing answer that can be given that wouldn't embarrass the committee. If there were, one of the arbs would have replied to my email by now. After all, you have the emails I sent Lar. It should be so easy for one of you to gently point out to me in a private email where it was that I admitted to him that the check was justified. You can't, because I said exactly the opposite. But don't be surprised that the hushing up of that matter, and the using of the unjust final decision in that case in order to desysop SlimVirgin now has made some people on the project very suspcious, very dissatisfied, and very angry. ElinorD (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- No hushups, no conspiracies. A huge amount of discussion and many long email dialogs, all coming down to one thing - disagreement with the view taken. We may never agree on that particular case, but its relevance in this case is that SlimVirgin had been told in two past cases, and two recent cases, "your conduct isn't okay". Her conduct wasn't okay here either, and I happen not to be an enabler of consistent poor conduct after a certain point of trying to get change. Doubley so when it harms other wiki processes that editors rely on in disputes. Giano wasn't relevant here, and past history only relevant so far as it showed "doesn't seem to respond to warnings".
- Perhaps the "very angry" people might want to consider that SV is not a martyr. She was an admin, appointed and expected to uphold the standards of one, and who despite numerous cases not only failed to do so, but also undermined others who were legitimately doing so. Some were suspicious, dissatisfied or angry? In a rhetorical sense, be angry about that instead, and seek a level field on standards that all are expected to abide by. Be suspicious that some seem to flaunt well agreed communal norms such as collegial debate and good tone at whim, and resolve to follow those yourselves. Be dissatisfied that sometimes it's ones' own friends who let the team down, and do not be partisan to them when they do, encourage others not to do so. Those are things worthy of anger, suspicion, dissatisfaction -- and change.
- Again you ignore the question, and respond with a homily on goodness. If the direct and truthful answer were to your credit, you would have given it by now. Tom Harrison Talk 16:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the SlimVirgin-Lar case continues to be raised, I would respond simply by noting that ElinorD seems to have forgotten many of the comments that SV made. The issue here is assuming bad faith and being overly ready to make personal accusations, and thus this is in addition to the fact that the issue there was raised against Lar in an unrelated discussion, apparently months after the issue had been discussed and left internally. A short list is below.
- "If you know some of the details of the case, and I assume you do (though I also know you don't know all of them), you'll know that he had no grounds *whatsoever* to perform the first check, or the second, but it was assumed and hoped that both checks might lead to me. He performed the check upon the private request of a troublemaker who has been harassing me for over a year."[32]
- "Lar was (he said) contacted privately by Mackan79 and was asked to perform a check on Wikitumnus and Crum375, on the grounds that they appeared to be sockpuppets. / Mackan79 is an editor who has been trying to cause me problems for about 12-18 months, ever since Dmcdevit blocked him for 3RR and he blamed me, both for the block in the first place, and for not persuading Dmcdevit to unblock him. I assume that his interest in Crum derived from his interest in me, and that the involvement of Wikitumnus was to give him and Lar a back door into a check of Crum."
- "And Lar now feels he can check whomsoever he wants to check, whenever he wants to do it, for bad reasons and for none."[33]
- "The point, Charles, which seems to escape you, is that people on the Ombudsman commission are meant to be neutral and disinterested, so that editors trust them. If you care about that lack of trust, I hope you'll give your place to someone else."[34]
- "Wikipedia Review has made the claim that they have a checkuser in their pocket, a claim that was confirmed by one of the few posters there that I tend to trust."[35]
- "Similarly, when I read Wikipedia Review claiming to have a checkuser in their pocket, my first thought was, "That person will out himself by checkusering me." (It was like finding out which employee has raided the company accounts by waiting to see which of them suddenly buys a new car and a second home in the country.)[36]
Eventually, the entire claim changed from all of this to one that Lar should not have discussed the issue with his wife, and about whether there had been prior contact between his wife and "Wikitumnus" (incidentally I have never understood the relevance of such contact). Even here SV stated: "For the umpteenth time, Wikitumnus had ZERO connection with Lar's wife. No interaction whatsoever. Lar is giving the impression of a connection to make it appear that he passed Wiktumnus's identity to one of Wikitumnus's mates. It is false. It is spin. Wikitumnus gave up his account because of it." However, considering ElinorD seems to have now acknowledged that Lar had previously communicated his wife's views on ElinorD's situation to ElinorD, and that ElinorD had addressed these views to Lar, the statement that there was "no connection" seems to be at least as far from the truth as anything Lar is claimed to have said. Is either assessment a lie? I think it's fair to say that ArbCom did not see that as the central issue of the case.
To suggest in any case that all of SV's claims in that case checked out is extraordinary, and more to the point, false. Which is not for that matter to say the events in that case have much to do with this one, but it does seem that these incorrect statements about it should be addressed. Mackan79 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the questions Elinor asks above about what emails people had received and so on can be answered very simply with 'yes got those ones' or whatever other simple factual answers apply, but people are avoiding answering what are simple questions. Sticky Parkin 01:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Did the questions ever get answered? I can't believe this. SashaNein (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Banning of greg in Piotrus arbcom?
Could you look at discussion here and here? Perhaps some milder remedies could be considered? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
IPnumber
I believe the DPeterson entity may be endeavouring to stage a come back. [37]. Fainites barleyscribs 09:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- The data and edits don't say yes or no at this time. However the edits match in theme, a tenacious arbcom and community banned POV warrior, who had made similar edits. At least this is suspect, and although slender, this edit contains two points that suggest a reason for watching further.
- In brief, if it is, you'll know in a while anyway. Be patient and let the edits speak for themselves. The behavior and issues are known, so it is fairly easy if it did happen to be a repeat. In the meantime two things:
- I've asked directly for the IP user to comment on this concern, and advised of the issues in this topic area.
- If they do say they are a different user - consider that they might be. Allow good faith and explain this is an area where a high standard and good evidence is needed, and behaviors and changes of a kind "pushed" by past banned users will necessarily get attention and should be avoided unless there is consensus and good reason.
I am utterly stumped
Your nonblocking of SA seems to hinge on the fact that he might be repentant about his actions but he is clearly not. I'm not questioning your decision, but maybe it is time to reconsider...? — neuro(talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fairly hard nosed on disruption, and I deal with a range of threats and harassments, so I'm used to this area. This was my thinking, and for an editor like SA, controversial.
- SA is blocked, and has a long block log. I'm reviewing his post, as opposed to other posts when he has genuinely threatened users, to try and gauge what strength to give it. Ignore and revert? Extend for NPA? Indef and community ban? AE? So I review. The first thing that you'll notice is, it's diffuse. It names multiple editors, fantastical fantasies, and a general "GET OFF MY PAGE!" style. It's untargetted. I take it more as venting due to stress, and these are the editors he's stressed over. Revert, ignore, and the urge to repeat will probably be blown out of his system for now. If it was in discussion or spoken "to" a user, that's different. This isn't that. It's basically "I'm stressed, get away!"
- Choices. First off, he's blocked. "Block->uncivil->extend block" is valid within limits. Community ban or ANI? A threat needs a bit more substance than "list of people and ludicrous fantasy ending related to their editing interest". If consensus said these were serious threats, sure. I'm not sure it would. Extend? An option.
- I chose to ignore, and the one thing I know is, it'll derail the aggression completely for a time.
- But I'm not naive. Sadly SA has acted up before, and his block log and warnings speak for the likely future too. He has one chance from me. If he did unfortunately repeat in the near future, then the fact he would do so after this gesture... I would conclude little could help. A next block if he came back and carried right on, might easily be directly to 2 weeks or a month; the flip side of this decision. Last chance before we start seeing serious blocks or discussion of a ban, maybe. My own feeling is, let him have his chance, although others have done the same. Because patience is rapidly running out, and there can be little doubt that not that far away, week and month long blocks and community bans might be the next step, given the escalations seen, if he can't change the behaviors people have asked of him for so long.
- This once, I felt, he's blocked and venting. Ignore, use it to try and make the point we aren't against him, we just want change. And so ignore, rather than extend. You'll probably find 20 admins who'd go for extend or ban, not ignore, for every 1 who'd do the other way. It's a safe chance to see what happens. No harm to the wiki or users will come of ignoring and reverting, as he is already blocked and will blow over with this handling as much as a longer block would achieve - possibly moreso. And yes I'm well aware some will differ - perhaps vehemently. As I told him, this is very rare. Don't expect it again. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
My ArbCom questions
Just a note to say that I'm not ignoring your question. I'm working through them in order (about 250, including sub-questions, so far) and it will probably be a day or two yet before it's completed. I had hoped to have replied by now but I have a filthy cold and high temperature, which has been getting steadily worse since Friday last, and it's cramping my style somewhat. Apologies, --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I posted similar notes to a few people when I was standing last year. I respect your doing so, thank you. It's indeed a huge amount of work, this election, and sickness makes it tougher by far. Although I will not be voting either way based on the answers, they were asked seriously, and I would like to read your answers before the election ends if able. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Peter Damian
I've left a question for you at User_talk:Peter_Damian_II#Unblock.2C_explanation.2C_conditions.2C_and_apology --Duk 05:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Peter Damian II
Hello, this is a courtesy post to let you know I've initiated a motion at RFAR to ask Arbcom to look at allowing user:Peter Damian to edit mainspace whilst abiding by the rest of the restrictions he agreed with User:Thatcher. (although good sense might keep you out of this one) Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Question
In your RfAr responses, you invited questions about any aspect of your conduct editors might see as problematic, so I've left a question for you here. SlimVirgin talk|edits 02:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I actually plan to cover a lot of such openness once the last 2 weeks flu fully leaves (its being tenacious, though mostly gone now, still quite headachy). The oversighted edits will be part of that, as will various other matters. I need permission to cite a few emails first, because on this I want to be free to cite diffs and salient parts of third party emails as evidence, not just empty claims; and I will aim to get that tomorrow.
- As an aside, the question you're asking isn't relevant for Peter Damian's return to editing, so I'll comment and discuss in a more appropriate venue, to keep that motion on its one specific topical issue. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- well I for one am a bit confused why you can't answer the question without permission from elsewhere, FT! - still, your comment on the arb page intrigued me enough to swing by here, so at least you're not obfuscating :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Enough confusion". I'd like to back what is said with some evidence. That means getting permission to do so, for a couple of items, rather than just claiming it's so. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- well speaking personally, I'd trust you if you answered clearly, and spoke plainly.. I guess if I didn't trust you, I wouldn't value the evidence you present, either... I'm sure this is moving forward ok though... Privatemusings (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- FT2, I have asked the question again on the RfAr page. Would you please address it there? It is, indeed, relevant to the issue at hand, and it can be answered very easily. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- well speaking personally, I'd trust you if you answered clearly, and spoke plainly.. I guess if I didn't trust you, I wouldn't value the evidence you present, either... I'm sure this is moving forward ok though... Privatemusings (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Enough confusion". I'd like to back what is said with some evidence. That means getting permission to do so, for a couple of items, rather than just claiming it's so. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- well I for one am a bit confused why you can't answer the question without permission from elsewhere, FT! - still, your comment on the arb page intrigued me enough to swing by here, so at least you're not obfuscating :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have asked it again, [38] and I'd appreciate an answer on that page. The question is directly relevant to whether you're someone who ought to be on the arbitration committee, and that is directly relevant to the extent to which Peter was right or wrong to draw attention to certain issues. I ask you most sincerely to answer the question and clear the matter up. Did you tell the truth on July 4, 2008 when you said that was the first time you had heard of your early edits being oversighted seven months earlier during the election? SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration statement(s) regarding Peter Damian
I have removed your statement(s) in the current request for clarification regarding Peter Damian because they greatly exceeded the permitted length for such statements (~500 words). Please feel free to resubmit a statement of more reasonable length. Thank you. Kirill (prof) 05:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Will try.
- Please note (anyone involved in the case) I will be away from now until Sunday afternoon/evening. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI
[39]. I'm sorry. I like both of you, but it had to be said. rootology (C)(T) 19:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's okay. And I don't hold it against you, you still rate trust. (Your post aims to help honestl;y address/resolve a disturbing dispute, nothing more, which should be crystal clear to anybody.) But it does merit a reply.
- Having avoided Damian despite his campaigning, for the entirety of the last year, despite smear allegations by Damian made to my friends of criminal conduct (you didn't think Damian was doing that sort of stuff? Think again. Luckily I have friends who know me better, but they might not have), and despite repeated back-tracking and smearing... I do not really expect that when there is finally a hearing, and I am finally and for the first time in that year (beyond a couple of talk page responses months ago), asked to present evidence, that this evidence will be met as if it's some ongoing writing. It isn't. I've ignored Damian beyond the norm. Check it for yourself. But RFAR needs evidence, so an evidence statement is being posted. You aren't obligated to read the evidence (there's a lot), and you may be tired of the dispute (I am too)... but I'd like it bourne in mind, I've done more than most would do, to avoid Damian, protect Damian's interests, and completely ignore Damian. This once, I'm posting evidence (as needed). Then I intend to resume the same avoidance as before.
- Can you check your facts, or even email me if you need to, if you have clear concerns that I'm not seeing? Unchecked assertions are one reason the evidence is long - because however inaccurate, they are stated and hence need to be formally rebutted. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
NLP
Since you don't edit NLP articles any more, is it a big problem if Damian does, as long as he takes responsibility for his own edits? If it is, how about if both of you are forbidden from editing those articles? Perhaps there could be such an arrangement, without indicating any wrongdoing on your side in editing the articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I drafted a reply. Then I thought it's not a debate worth having. Too many words; I suspect most editors are tired of it in general. If you want to read what I wrote, it's in history, but basically, the simple answer is, the content warring disturbs me in a way that the personal attacks don't. Ignoring a personal attack is one issue; ignoring willful harm to the project's mainspace content is quite another. The evidence either shows this or doesn't; please form your own view. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Questions for me
I've gone as far as I can with them (sorry, it was at the eleventh hour). The health issues got out of control and it's mucked up all sorts of things. Thanks for your patience. I have a family do this evening (UTC) but I'll try to check in around 22:00-ish if you'd like any clarifications. Thanks for your patience! --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- No need. You've answered my underlying question. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Question again
When you stood for ArbCom in 2007, you wrote, "As an arbitrator (if appointed) I give my commitment to absolute integrity; to be accountable; to be approachable; and to be fair, insightful and effective."
I'm asking you now to show some of that absolute integrity, accountability, and approachability. When you said in July 2008 that you had not previously heard that your earliest edits had been oversighted in December 2007 — during the ArbCom election — were you telling the truth? [40]
If what you said is true, it means that editors' legitimate contributions (edits that don't identify, defame, insult, or offer demonstrably false information) are being quietly oversighted without their knowledge. This is very serious. If you were not telling the truth, it means we have an arbitrator who is willing to lie in public (not mislead, not obfuscate, but lie), which I hope would mean he'd agree to resign.
Either way, it's an issue that isn't going away. I therefore ask you please to address it, because the absence of an explanation is undermining you and the Committee. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it not "going away", because I have already stated I'll open up that issue to discuss. I'm also anticipating I don't need to say more than once, your hopes of a high standard of integrity are justified which I've already said. making repetitious posts on it isn't actually making any difference at all to that statement. I still have things to prioritize, I still have pressurized time demands that this is one of, and I still have a couple of tasks between work that need finishing writing, before I can get onto that.
- Feel free to ask once, twice, ten times more, or not at all, I still have to prioritize and ensure I have a "clear desk" to open up the breadth of discussion I would like and feel to be appropriate. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- (2x edit conflict) And incidentally, you don't need to cite my words at me. There isn't a day of editing or wiki involvement when I don't take those words a load more seriously than you'll ever know. A number of users and arbitrators have been given a heads up what I feel right to do. Some object. They've also been told, on this one matter unlike any other, it's not up for debate "whether" or not. It's non-negotiable, and for exactly the reason you casually cite. Now drop it a while, and let the priorities be cleared. I underline that, by stating I will remove further nags and requests on this page (by whoever) for a short while -- and I underline the commitment to return to it by saying, if I don't come back to it then ask again around Christmas +/- a day. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- hows about the simple 'yes / no' with the detail to follow, FT? - Was this post true? - to avoid the simple answer at this stage is not on, really. Poor show. Privatemusings (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- You do realize that the delay is hurting the Committee as a whole? Rightly or wrongly, all Committee members get tarnished by this kind of thing. The delay is especially odd because, as PM has said, it wouldn't take you more than a minute to answer the question — you either knew about the oversighting before July 4, 2008, or you didn't. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The longer this drags on the more your integrity suffers wether you are in the right or in the wrong. You are rapidly losing any goodwill people had built up for you. Goodwill required for you to be effective as an arb. ViridaeTalk 04:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not in the "appearances and perception massaging" market, Viridae. If I were ignoring, that would be one thing. But I've said what I've said, and that it will be dealt with rather more openly than SlimVirgin might have expected, and what you're asking for is essentially "can we have a sneak preview anyway". Answer on that is "no, because if I did, I'd want to follow it fully to deal with it thoroughly, and I can't commit to that until a couple of other pending matters are concluded". Hence "patience". You have my words that SlimVirgin has cited. They were not said lightly... and I tend to prefer understatement, so read into that as you will. But I'm not going to prematurely open this discussion further until I know I can deal with it thoroughly; that would be a bit like "blocking and immediately going away for a week", when you know you'll be asked to discuss. Not good practice.
- In this case, a little patience is best. I've waited months for this myself. A few days to make some time spare, is not long. I'd hoped for end November, before other well-known things came up. With respect, and apologies, I will respond when I can properly do so and aim to meet the full range of intentions I have for that dialog, of which this is just one. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- heh... so it's not possible to say 'yes' or 'no' because there's more to it? Whilst I look forward to full 'n frank dialog etc. etc. I don't buy it, really. It's weak. Privatemusings (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)merry christmas though! - and I hope you're not stressed out by all this, I just think it's better cleared up really.... cheers
- Of course there's more to it. Do you honestly think if I posted a "yes" or "no" that it would get met with a "thank you, thats fine" and no request for follow-up? Or that there might not be things I feel would be good to raise, too? Better to open the various things on my mind, at a time when I'm less likely to be dragged off to something else if it is a busy discussion, away for a day or so dealing with other matters, or on days I'm perhaps unpredictably putting in long work hours. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, I feel you're seeing this only from your own point of view. It's undermining the current ArbCom, and as others have argued elsewhere (of the Peter Damian situation in general), it's in danger of poisoning the new Committee too, because they'll be left to inherit the stuff that's not been cleared up. In the interests of the new Committee's relationship with the community, you definitely need to have this dealt with before they take office, and if it's as complex as you're implying, discussing it could take some time. So really, the sooner the process begins, the better for everyone. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Of course there's more to it. Do you honestly think if I posted a "yes" or "no" that it would get met with a "thank you, thats fine" and no request for follow-up? Or that there might not be things I feel would be good to raise, too? Better to open the various things on my mind, at a time when I'm less likely to be dragged off to something else if it is a busy discussion, away for a day or so dealing with other matters, or on days I'm perhaps unpredictably putting in long work hours. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- heh... so it's not possible to say 'yes' or 'no' because there's more to it? Whilst I look forward to full 'n frank dialog etc. etc. I don't buy it, really. It's weak. Privatemusings (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)merry christmas though! - and I hope you're not stressed out by all this, I just think it's better cleared up really.... cheers
- FT2 was certainly aware of the oversight issue in May, at least for certain values of the word "aware." I proposed to FloNight that I would unblock Peter Damian and I asked about the oversight issue. She sent my message to a mailing list (not Arbcom-L) composed of the active arbitrators. Perhaps FT2 was distracted by the pending unblock request and did not notice the oversight query in the same email, but he did receive the email. (I can not say of my own knowledge whether FT2 was aware of the oversight controversy before May 2 or whether he in fact requested the oversight.) Thatcher 19:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Thatcher. FT2, did you see the reference to the oversighting issue in Flo's May 2008 e-mail to the active arb's list? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You realise that saying you need a "clear desk" before you answer a yes/no question conveys the message that the answer will be no but you want the space to explain it away? While on the subject of answering questions, you do not seem to have answered Elinor D's questions above. It seems to me that the issue of the oversighted edit is a stick you are being beaten with, rather than anything substantial, and I don't doubt that you were not a part of a clique with Dave Gerard (although he might well have decided on his own account to protect someone who it seemed to him was worth protecting for whatever reason), but the longer you obfuscate, the more you undermine your standing, such as it is. Grace Note (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Title blacklist
Please remove [41]. I think I know what it's referring to and it's much too big of a baby to lump in with the bathwater. There are thousands of valid page titles with "Everett" in the name. --NE2 11:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, this blacklist would not interfere with any of the existing articles. It would prevent creation of a new page, or a username, containing the text though. If the issue is history, then sure. I'll check later today if it is, and remove early and quickly if so. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the issue is "history" - this is an overly broad entry that is interfering with article creation. --NE2 14:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, didn't know you had meant it was a "new page request" issue. The usual handling for the title blacklist is easy - ask any admin to create the page for you (a note on ANI, or email, or anyone's talk page who is responsive), then enjoy editing. The blacklist only restricts page creation to admins, it doesn't otherwise affect the thousands of existing pages as far as I'm told. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- How many editors know about that procedure? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's still a pain, and that entry should be removed. Can you please move Evrett Railroad to Everett Railroad? --NE2 15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- (reply to Apoc2400) Any editor that tries to create a blacklisted page - the message shown when trying to edit a blacklisted page tells people to go to WP:AN. Mr.Z-man 16:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, didn't know you had meant it was a "new page request" issue. The usual handling for the title blacklist is easy - ask any admin to create the page for you (a note on ANI, or email, or anyone's talk page who is responsive), then enjoy editing. The blacklist only restricts page creation to admins, it doesn't otherwise affect the thousands of existing pages as far as I'm told. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the issue is "history" - this is an overly broad entry that is interfering with article creation. --NE2 14:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The message was confusing, and needed to be much simpler for users. Edited. Any better? FT2 (Talk | email) 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- The line "Alternatively you may contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail." is not very useful. Most users don't know how to find an administrators talk page, and the link doesn't go there. Also, I suggest changing "good reason for this action" to "reason to create this article". Third, can I suggest removing "as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do". I don't want to apologize for creating an article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much
[42] Jehochman Talk 16:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)While I know you mean well, please do not edit my comments anywhere on this project. My comment was not an attack of any kind, not directed at Jecochman personally, and was a description of the typical Giano drama fest we see everyday. Again, please do not edit my comments. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 16:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are times that forced redaction/modification of a comment is required, and this was one of them. AP: you were asked to re-think, you decided not to. Someone else chose the higher road that you refused to take. I really recommend to return it to the redacted version. My 2 cents. ♪BMWΔ 16:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request
FYI, User:Msk100 appears to be suffering from a rangeblock you've placed. The user doesn't have any contributions outside of a deleted article, so any information you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 16:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing that you yourself aren't able to see. The sole use of the account was to create a (now deleted) article on a computer game in October 2007 which was in rather too much depth, and deleted, plus associated images. There's a previous (identical) unblock request in June [43], which the user blanked. No evidence of bad-faith editorship. Likely a fair case for {{ipexemptgranted}} if that sounds right. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Great. Thanks, FT2. That's what I figured, given the block message, but wanted to check with you first. I'll grant ipexemption for now and keep an eye out. Best, - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request
Kurushi (talk · contribs) has been caught in an IP rangeblock you applied. Could you take a look and see if IP block exemption is warranted? Kevin (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Block of Moreschi
Your block of Moreschi
This block is likely to result in an escalating conflict, in which there is a block war over whether Moreschi should be blocked for unblocking Giano II. Furthermore, by an extension of the principle that administrators may be blocked for the abuse of the blocking tool, you yourself might be blocked, etc, resulting in an expanding block war. This matter should be presented to the Arbitration Committee for a determination of whether Moreschi's administrative privileges should be suspended -- blocking administrators isn't a useful remedy for the perceived abuse of administrative privileges. John254 21:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- If Moreschi isn't desysopped SlimVirgin should get her bit back. Fair is fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.42.142 (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I will state at this point that if Moreschi should get desysopped, I will resign too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- THe only person who should be desysopped is FT2, fat chance of that happening. Hey FT2 why not run a reconfirmation RFA to see if the community still trusts you, go on I dare you. RMHED (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Moreschi does not have the history of SlimVirgin, so is very unlikely to get desysoped. Anyway, I don't see anyone filing an RFAR against him. Also how about you stop trying to gt your way by shouting? Maybe it's popular with those who already believe in a big ArbCom/IRC/cabal/whatever conspiracy, but not for the rest of us. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- THe only person who should be desysopped is FT2, fat chance of that happening. Hey FT2 why not run a reconfirmation RFA to see if the community still trusts you, go on I dare you. RMHED (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Policy violation, apparently, Response needed
Your block of Moreschi violates WP:BLOCK and WP:WHEEL. Was this block approved by ArbCom? If so, who voted in favor and who opposed? Jehochman Talk 22:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, there's currently a discussion of your actions at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_Giano_II_wheel_war. John254 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sez who? M broke the obvious arbcomm ruling, and a block for it seems entirely natural William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the Arbitration Enforcement section referred to by you in your notice of the block executed upon Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I would advise you that it is my intention to lift the block in half an hour, as I do not see any authority provided in the wording that justifies your act - nor do I see how it may be construed as being within the remit of ArbCom to sanction an admin over the use of their bit in a matter which ArbCom has an prior involvement or interest which does not exactly reflect the wording provided. I would make the following points;
- The Enforcement wording refers only to "Enforcement", and not the relief, of sanctions.
- There is no provision for the sanctioning of admins or other parties for failure to comply with with Enforcement, even if it were the case, shown.
- There has been no suspension or removal of privileges for Deskana (talk · contribs) or Theresa Knott (talk · contribs), even though they violated the specific wording of the Enforcement - with one being an Arb that voted for the provision and the other an Ex Arb still on the mailing list (please note, I do not believe they should be sanctioned either; I am noting an imbalance of reaction to those who blocked Giano II contrary to that provision and one who unblocked Giano II where there is no clear wording).
- Moreschi was not and has not been formally warned regarding his conduct, nor pointed toward a policy or guideline under which he has been sanctioned thereby not providing him with a basis on which to request unblock.
- There is no ArbCom consensus apparent that they have the remit to block or otherwise sanction an admin or member for acting against the supposed wishes of the ArbCom where the case is not referred to them, or does form part of a previous decision.
- There is no wording that I am aware of (I look forward to links) that indicates that Jimbo Wales or the community has given permission for ArbCom to act unilaterally against a party that is in conflict with ArbCom - as a sysop may not use the bit where they have prior involvement editorially, so ArbCom may not be permitted to act where they are in conflict with a user over interpretation of ArbCom decisions.
- No non-Arb may unblock. By what authority?
- Did you have the agreement of a majority of the ArbCom to sanction Moreschi, or is this another presumption? If you have the agreement, please provide a link giving the relevent policy, and if you did not then you have acted only as another sysop, in a matter in which you have been previously involved, and were therefore ineligible to make this block.
- Blocks are intended to diminish disruption. Instead, this block and the ones preceding it have created further and wider disruption. This sanction may also seem punative, in that it is enacted by ArbCom (or represented as being so) for actions that may be considered to be against the will of (part) of ArbCom.
- As I believe that you or ArbCom have no basis in policy, guideline, practice or precedent for the execution of this block I shall be lifting it in half an hours time, unless you do so yourself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
If you choose to escalate further, that is your choise. Let's hope it ends there at leat and noone else continues. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU, that's easily the most legalistic justification I've ever seen on wiki. We don't exactly do that kind of thing on Wikipedia, though. I would highly recommend against extending the wheel war further. --Cyde Weys 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Really? Cause I could swear the most legalistic justification I'd ever seen was calling a single signed edit to a friend's talk page "block evasion". Not to mention reblocking despite knowing full well what a shitstorm it would unleash. Legalistic and moronic. the wub "?!" 00:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the precise comment that you're claiming as legalistic challenger to LessHeard vanU's above? I daresay verbosity is a necessary prerequisite of being legalistic, and thus what you just summed up in a single sentence doesn't really appear legalistic to me. But I venture that we're getting off-topic. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well I wouldn't consider long-windedness to be necessary, I was thinking of the broader sense described at wikilawyering, particularly "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions". Nevertheless I'm sure we can look forward to some exceedingly long and tedious statements from certain quarters over the next few days. the wub "?!" 18:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's okay, wub. My wordiness is not exactly a secret and I'm not exactly over-sensitive on it. Unfortunately I find it very hard to be clear without giving good background why I see it as it is. I tend to want to say "I reckon X... and here's the reasoning and evidence". Yes, I do often wish I knew how to do that and still be briefer. It would help. It's not the end of the world though, and it means newyorkbrad doesn't have to worry about being "wordiest arbitrator", so that's a good thing :) FT2 (Talk | email) 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well I wouldn't consider long-windedness to be necessary, I was thinking of the broader sense described at wikilawyering, particularly "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions". Nevertheless I'm sure we can look forward to some exceedingly long and tedious statements from certain quarters over the next few days. the wub "?!" 18:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the precise comment that you're claiming as legalistic challenger to LessHeard vanU's above? I daresay verbosity is a necessary prerequisite of being legalistic, and thus what you just summed up in a single sentence doesn't really appear legalistic to me. But I venture that we're getting off-topic. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi has been unblocked awhile ago now, with FT2's concurrence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, RFAR
FYI, you're a named party in this RFAR.[44]. rootology (C)(T) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Question regarding alternative remedy for greg
In light of votes to close and this passing, may I ask if you have seen this alternate proposal? If you have seen it, could you post your vote there, with a rationale? Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just resign as an Arb, you're not wanted. RMHED (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I expect FT2 will be going for a reconfirmation RfA very soon, as I'm sure he's keen to prove he still has community trust. I can't think of any reason why he wouldn't do this, unless of course he fears the outcome? RMHED (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- RHMED: Your comments are unacceptable. Please stop attacking people. J.delanoygabsadds 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- How is the above an attack? FT2 clearly has problems as regards his credibility as an Arb. RMHED (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct, and I apologize for labeling your comment as such. However, I don't understand what useful purpose is served by gloating about that on his talk page. J.delanoygabsadds 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm really not gloating, I just find it telling that thus far FT2 hasn't acknowledged that there is any kind of problem. It would be so refreshing to see someone in his position hold a reconfirmation RfA, even if it failed and he was desysopped it would still do him much credit. One can't help but feel that the holding on to power is all that he cares about. RMHED (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct, and I apologize for labeling your comment as such. However, I don't understand what useful purpose is served by gloating about that on his talk page. J.delanoygabsadds 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- How is the above an attack? FT2 clearly has problems as regards his credibility as an Arb. RMHED (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- RHMED: Your comments are unacceptable. Please stop attacking people. J.delanoygabsadds 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I just wanted to pop in to see how you were doing (though we've never met before, but I've seen you around a lot). :)
Don't take this too hard. I know I'm under the unfortunate pile-on of lost confidence, but I've been thinking things over. It looks as though the community initially placed tremendous faith in your judgement and demeanor - sound judgement doesn't typically disappear without circumstance. It's obvious you've been under a fair amount of stress for the past year, both on-wiki and off, more so than previously. Perhaps it's hindered things a bit?
In any case, I actually feel somewhat bad about the whole thing. Every side of the dispute tries to do what they perceive to be the right thing, and it has only resulted in drama - which typically ends in misery. You're not perfect, nor is Moreschi, nor is Giano, nor is anybody else - we all make mistakes. It becomes especially magnified when everyone expects more of you, and when it seems you can't seem to keep up in the air, you've crashed and burned. Nevertheless, you've done a lot of good things for the project, disregarding mistakes, misjudgements and circumstances made on the committee.
Hopefully your next two years will be more successful and fullfilling than this one has been. I understand how it must feel - I have been there myself (figuratively) - but everyone deserves a second chance and I have a good feeling, once all this dust settles, you can regain the community's trust. It will take time, of course, but (contrary to my signing there) I have confidence in you. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer | talk | contribs 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy holidays
Happy holidays
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Merry Christmas!
|
Merry Christmas! | |
| Template:Sound sample box align right
Template:Sample box end FT2, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
-FT2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-FT2.png){kind=link}
Merry Christmas from Promethean
FT2,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)
feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees
Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
re:WV policies
An experienced policy writer would be a big help, yes :-). I think the next two that have been takled about most (aside from v:WV:NOT, which is being voted on now) are v:Wikiversity:Respect people (an addition to the civility policy that we hope will among other things stop the "outing"... I wrote a stronger version at v:Wikiversity:Respect pseudonyms, but tht was rejected as too strong), and v:Wikiversity:Stubs (see v:Special:ShortPages to understand why that's become a problem). There was some discussion a few months ago about notability policies as well: particularly whether it's appropriate to have research projects about particular Wikpedia editors and groups of editors. Our research policies in general aren't very well developed... the only very large research project so far is the Bloom Clock, which isn't in any way controversial.
Any insights you can offer would be greatly appreciated! --SB_Johnny | talk 12:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh just noticed a link from irc yesterday... v:WV:NPOV also failed (some courses need to follow a certain POV), so we're never sure what to do about things like v:Israel vs Genocide and similar "forks" that apparently stem from POV conflicts here on Wikipedia. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight
I have been fairly busy, and will hopefully respond on the Village Pump talk page. I don't know when though. I have kind of lost interest, and I am still busy. Also, I can see the points of view of admins who want more permanent solutions (such as wider blanket use of NOINDEX) to problems.
I fundamentally disagree though about the utility and speed of the current implementation and placement of the internal search engine. I have discussed this in detail elsewhere, and may discuss it further when I get the time. I have kind of lost steam on it though currently. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- It's more, your concern was that internal search was inadequate compared to Google. I was curious to see a URL of a google search that was needed to find something useful that couldn't be reasonably found by an equivalent internal search. They seem broadly, equally capable to me, although there's surely some differences where one or the other has a slight upper hand. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
 |
Happy New Year! | |
| Hey there, FT2! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)
Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. |
Happy, new year, Effie :) Sticky Parkin 01:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear FT2,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
IPBE for a user on User:91.108.234.250
Can you please have a look at WP:RFCU/IP#IPBE_for_User:Lorkers if you got the time? Thanks! -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 10:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
RFC at WP:NOR-notice
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Agneau needs your consideration for IP block exemption
Hello FT2. User talk:Agneau has an active unblock request. He has encountered your rangeblock of 91.108.192.0/18. Though he is only an occasional contributor, his visible edits seem to be of high quality. Please consider whether IP block exemption should be granted.
A previous unblock request (visible in the history) stated The IP range of 91.108.192.0/18 includes the gateway of my ISP's broadband connection but I am am a bona fide user - though not a very active one. Could I please have checkuser and IP block exemption? (I suspect the range covers all Orange UK users). EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Tweaking
Hi FT2, I have noticed that you often make long posts, which you then spend some time "tweaking". It may be easier for you, and for editors waiting for you to arrive at a final version of your comments before responding, to use a sandbox to prepare such posts. You can easily start one by clicking on User:FT2/Sandbox. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I often revisit and rework comments once posted. I use preview, but ... then it still needs rewording. See User talk:FT2/Archive#Preview for a previous take on this. You're right, but it's a habit I find hard to break. I'll try once more though. Thank you! FT2 (Talk | email) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Psst!
Wikipedia:Search engine indexing. Maybe we can work out something here and then present it to the community, rather than filling the Village Pump with lengthy arguments that bore most people to tears. Jehochman Talk 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have added a few concerns. I think it is better to disclose the pros and the cons in the narrative and then let the reader decide, per NPOV. Sorry, I did this before noticing the
{{Inuse}}notice. Jehochman Talk 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- The {{Inuse}} is mostly so people don't dive in or try to use it until it's ready. Having the appearance of a 2nd parallel page (ie same topic in discussion at the same time) is confusing and disruptive; instead, VPP shows there is quite a significant level of interest and a more formal proposal is now needed to be prepared. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Promised clarifications
It is now almost 30 days since you promised to make a more detailed response to questions about your role in and knowledge of the oversight matter [45] [46] and 15 days since I emailed you a list of requested clarifications and you replied "That was roughly my thinking too." Thatcher 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- See this. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but the matter to which I am referring has nothing to do with the rest of Arbcom and there is no need to involve them. You voluntarily made statements which I believe require correction and clarification. I thought you had agreed in principle to those corrections and clarifications. Nothing that I suggested needs to be said requires the approval of Arbcom or anyone else, or searching any archives beyond our own Dec 20-22 correspondence. Thatcher 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It has everything to do with them. This is an area where much dispute has gone on, and there are some 10 new arbitrators with little to no genuine background. Much of the past dialog was non-arbcom, and so the 2007-08 arbs don't each have everything either. There is a legitimate wish and interest to understand it by the committee, and two arbs have both posted to SlimVirgin to confirm it's not being ignored. With considerable discussion in the background already on some matters, things are not being ignored and filling the committee in first on the full background and evidence, and being open to their queries first, is a reasonable approach. I don't imagine it will need that long, and the link above is your reassurance that I had taken time to reassure SlimVirgin myself, without being asked, lest she wonder if it was forgotten. Two other arbitrators of the new appointees, then confirmed this. I hope this reassures -- as I said I have proactively kept SV informed on-wiki, and stated the intention to be open; it's not as immediate though. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arbcom can spend a month chewing old bones if you can persuade them to do so, frankly I think they have better things to do. If you once said "X" but the truth of the matter is "X (prime)" or "X+Y" or even "Y", you don't need permission of 17 other people to say so. Thatcher 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It has everything to do with them. This is an area where much dispute has gone on, and there are some 10 new arbitrators with little to no genuine background. Much of the past dialog was non-arbcom, and so the 2007-08 arbs don't each have everything either. There is a legitimate wish and interest to understand it by the committee, and two arbs have both posted to SlimVirgin to confirm it's not being ignored. With considerable discussion in the background already on some matters, things are not being ignored and filling the committee in first on the full background and evidence, and being open to their queries first, is a reasonable approach. I don't imagine it will need that long, and the link above is your reassurance that I had taken time to reassure SlimVirgin myself, without being asked, lest she wonder if it was forgotten. Two other arbitrators of the new appointees, then confirmed this. I hope this reassures -- as I said I have proactively kept SV informed on-wiki, and stated the intention to be open; it's not as immediate though. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but the matter to which I am referring has nothing to do with the rest of Arbcom and there is no need to involve them. You voluntarily made statements which I believe require correction and clarification. I thought you had agreed in principle to those corrections and clarifications. Nothing that I suggested needs to be said requires the approval of Arbcom or anyone else, or searching any archives beyond our own Dec 20-22 correspondence. Thatcher 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi FT2, I also ask that you address the issue now, please. You were first asked onwiki about the oversighting of the edits on July 4, 2008 by Alex Bakharev. You replied that this was the first you'd heard of it. [47] You were asked again on November 25 and 27 by Tom Harrison, Jehochman, and Giano. You repeated that the first you knew about it was in July, and that you'd give a full response in a few days or after that weekend. [48]
- I asked you on December 9 whether it was true that the first you knew of the oversighting was in July. [49] You replied that you'd answer soon in a more appropriate venue. [50] I asked again on December 16. You said you'd respond when you had a clear desk, and that I should ask again around Christmas, plus or minus one day. [51]
- As three weeks has passed since then, I hope you'll agree to respond in full within the next day or so. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi SlimVirgin and Thatcher. A week has elapsed since I mentioned at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Happy Christmas :) that we would need a "few weeks to do [this] properly". I am sorry that we havent been able to provide an update to indicate that we have the "full disclosure"; it hasnt been provided yet. However this is not going to be dropped, so please hold off for one more week so the committee has the full set of facts. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 08:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand your role in this. I am aware that there are a number of ongoing internal discussions at Arbcom, but it was FT2, acting as an individual and as a party to a dispute, who volunteered certain information which now appears (in my opinion) to require correction. He can chose to make those clarifications or not; I don't understand why you are taking a role here. Thatcher 12:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is amazing, why has the committee not already the facts? I also think David Gerard's role in this matter needs too to be investigated and explained. Giano (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Giano, I dont know what facts the prior committee did know, but they havent appeared to have all the facts (based on my own knowledge of it) or perhaps the other 2008 sitting arbs are waiting for the full disclosure from FT2, so as to not muddy the water with their own views and/or facts so far collated. I do believe that the sitting committee will very soon have a full disclosure of the facts from FT2. The delay of a week since FT2 promised a full disclosure to the new committee isnt perfect, but permissions must be sought, and given this time of year, a little grace doesnt go astray. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding David Gerard's role, we should take this one step at a time. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is amazing, why has the committee not already the facts? I also think David Gerard's role in this matter needs too to be investigated and explained. Giano (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- One step at a time - a step? I have seen danse corps ballerinas on points dancing as cygnets take greater and more adventurous steps. FT2 and Gerard have had ample time to explain their conduct. At the end of the day I doubt there is an acceptable explanation - or we would have heard it. It is looking as though the Arbcom has a cuckoo in its nest! Giano (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am sure you can appreciate that the difference is that the 2009 Arbcom hasnt practiced this particular movement before. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thatcher, my role is to try to ensure that FT2 has the space required to provide an unabridged statement to the sitting committee in order that we have heard his side so that the committee members will soon be able to form their own views on how we move forward. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The truth can be told quickly. A good lie takes time to fabricate. I strongly urge all parties involved in this matter to immediately explain themselves. The speed of disclosure is essential to restoring trust. It is my belief that there is a perfectly good explanation for the events. I am baffled why this explanation has not yet been provided yet. Nothing could be said that would be worse than the appearance of evasion. The needs of the Committee do not excuse the needs for a prompt explanation to the Community. Jehochman Talk 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Jayvdb, are you saying you need to ensure that FT2 has space to tell the truth? I don't think either the committee or the community is especially yearning for an "unabridged" version of "yes" or "no" from FT2. The question on the table isn't whether or not the 2009 arbcom has practiced dancing like prima ballerinas before; it's how long FT2 needs to practice shuffling his feet. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
I've been asked to provide full details; I'm doing so. It requires full comprehensive details of a matter taking place during the course of a year, from a very wide range of on- and off-site venues, and comprehensive disclosure is what is being delivered since I have no plans to do this degree of research in year-old archives again for this. It also has to fit round my work and others' work, my real life, and other historic matters, and coincides with a family season, a new arbcom season and the start of the working year. I am sure some would dash a 3 line note off in moments and be reckless with it; not here.
Incidentally, Giano, while we're waiting, two quick questions for you. When did you first learn about the specific edit being oversighted (revision 4557792 I think)? What was your opinion of it (as content I mean, assuming you've seen the edit)? Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- When did I learn? What was my opinion? My timing and opinion is neither here nor there. It's not up to me to be answering questions. You have had more than ample time to come up with some answers, and so far you have not. Without exception - the truth is always quick and easy, clearly something is not so easy here. So stop prevaricating, stop trying to ask others questions and give some credible answers or resign. Giano (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's a very simplistic viewpoint. It serves simple cases well, but not complex ones. Complex cases benefit from careful checking, for example of large archives, with review item by item where a search cannot be specified, to ensure accuracy, and to ensuring the balancing of that with a few overriding issues if applicable, such as privacy of users, WMF requirements, ability to cite emails and getting permission if needed, and so on. In this case since I'm being asked about someone else's actions, that were discussed by others, and in others' emails, I'd like to be sure I've done that task carefully. I doubt anyone else will do the work if I don't. Your answer, which is a quick and easy one, might help. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy to wait another week if it'll mean the issue is laid to rest, though I hope you'll bear in mind that the delay is doing you no favours. The key question, again, is not about someone else's actions, but about you, namely whether it's true that you first heard about the oversighting in July 2008. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's a very simplistic viewpoint. It serves simple cases well, but not complex ones. Complex cases benefit from careful checking, for example of large archives, with review item by item where a search cannot be specified, to ensure accuracy, and to ensuring the balancing of that with a few overriding issues if applicable, such as privacy of users, WMF requirements, ability to cite emails and getting permission if needed, and so on. In this case since I'm being asked about someone else's actions, that were discussed by others, and in others' emails, I'd like to be sure I've done that task carefully. I doubt anyone else will do the work if I don't. Your answer, which is a quick and easy one, might help. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- When did I learn? What was my opinion? My timing and opinion is neither here nor there. It's not up to me to be answering questions. You have had more than ample time to come up with some answers, and so far you have not. Without exception - the truth is always quick and easy, clearly something is not so easy here. So stop prevaricating, stop trying to ask others questions and give some credible answers or resign. Giano (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone else will do the work if I don't. It sounds like Thatcher has done plenty of work, and has reached a conclusion, too; one that's embarrassing for you. I hope you realize that as long as you cling to your arbitratorhood like a limpet, you're embarrassing not just yourself, but the entire committee. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
- A good example of "Assume bad faith", Bishonen. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good example of "offering a sanctimonious cliché in lieu of facing that you've been caught with your fingers in the moral cashbox," FT2. That should impress your fellow arbs and Jimbo. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
- Whatever happened to WP:NPA? Sticky Parkin 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- And you're a good example of a sycophant, Sticky Parkin. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC).
- Hardly lol. It depends on whether I think someone is acting ok or not in an individual circumstance. I'm not defending anything FT may or may not have done, I'm just saying there are ways we are supposed to talk on here, although of course some people seem to be able to talk however they like and get away with it without the normal rules applying. Sticky Parkin 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- And you're a good example of a sycophant, Sticky Parkin. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC).
- Whatever happened to WP:NPA? Sticky Parkin 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good example of "offering a sanctimonious cliché in lieu of facing that you've been caught with your fingers in the moral cashbox," FT2. That should impress your fellow arbs and Jimbo. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
- A good example of "Assume bad faith", Bishonen. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Very true Sticky Parkin, some editors, you for instance, do indeed feel able to say what they like about another editor, no matter how farcical or ill-informed they happen to be. However, what we are here for is some answers (simple monosyllabic ones) from FT2 - or is he still hoping that Jimbo will leap, as he did on me, and attack anyone who dares to raise even an eyebow at FT2's behaviour? I would still quite like to know why Gerard oversighted, mid election, his friends edits in the first place, but I expect an enlightening and satisfactory answer to that is too much to hope for. Well it is early days yet for the new Arbcom to get their act together, I shall be patient with them for a few more weeks yet. However, I am starting to drum my fingers on the desk - just one of my many irritating habits Giano (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Believe me, Giano, I don't think there's any checkusers I privately chat to at the moment. You must be confusing me with someone else. Although I'm sure the checkusers are lovely as a rule. All I meant by 'fun' is this looks a bit like bullying, maybe that's just me. Jayvb has said arbcom are dealing with it; why not nag them rather than persistently targeting one individual? Sticky Parkin 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Because, Sticky, this is not Arbcom's problem, except in the margins. FT2 made some misstatements; I believe he has an obligation to correct them, especially as he holds a position of influence. Arbcom's interest is understandable. They want to know what happened so that they will have their public response ready, assuming one is necessary once FT2 makes his corrections. But that does not relieve FT2 of the responsibility of making the corrections. Or do you think that a public announcement from Arbcom that "We have read FT2's explanation and are in agreement that no corrections are required" would close the matter. (And I assure you, no such announcement is forthcoming.) FT2 has a moral responsibility to correct/clarify certain past statements. The community will then respond. (Perhaps the community will shrug its collective shoulders and say, "Come on, Thatcher, Is That All There Is?") It is a courtesy to the other 16 members of Arbcom to give them time to become familiar with the situation before they are forced to confront it. But that's all it is, a courtesy, and time's almost up. Thatcher 18:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've held, on numerous occasions, that responsiveness is an important point for any active user, and the more so if entrusted with admin or other access. I wrote it myself into Wikipedia's admin policy. Nonetheless as you may have gathered, this is not simple nor a yes/no, and I am myself waiting as a result. There has been considerable dialog and consultation on it, which may attest that others the community trusts also find it necessary.
- This is not just about "disclosure and the community", as the above post implies. Various beliefs are mistaken, but the evidence is for Arbcom only. The timing of events is a second significant factor. A third part is the immense bad faith in this area. A good disclosure provides answers, not half-answers or mere fodder for drama and bad faith. Asking what manner of disclosure is best matters too, since once started it will need to be seen through. The rest of the committee are considering their advice to my questions. I'm waiting on that, rather than assuming, diving in, making wild guesses, assuming bad faith, and so on. I would rather do this once, properly (exactly as I prepared my evidence for Arbcom on it once and properly). My disclosure to Arbcom was about 105 K. All of it was solid evidence, email cites, diffs, evidenced timelines, and the like.
- How much of that 105 K I should post, and in what manner or place, and with what considerations, is the advice I have asked.
- I set out some time ago to disclose, and like you, I too am frustrated it has not been as easy as "yes or no" like I had thought. I have had strong and frank discussions in between about why I feel it is right to go ahead, and I have heard compelling reasons why it's better regardless to have a reply. It's not my wish nor my choice, and I have suggested a number of ways to disclose, but with great reluctance it is probably best to seek counsel. The matter isn't vanishing, nor is any of it active or changing; time is not going to change anything. So patience is appropriate here, even though (like other arbitration matters) a quick answer would be reassuring. I ask patience that this is not the simple point it seems, and that I will act once I have any definitive answer to my emails, as soon as I have it. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- 105K? I can say what needs to be said in 3 sentences, and give a decent precis of your defense in three short paragraphs. Thatcher 19:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- That would be helpful. I lost the thread around "The rest of the committee are considering their advice to my questions." Tom Harrison Talk 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- 105K? I can say what needs to be said in 3 sentences, and give a decent precis of your defense in three short paragraphs. Thatcher 19:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year + a follow up
G'day FT - and a happy new year to you and yours :-) - With apologies if this has been resolved elsewhere (I haven't spotted it) - I wondered if you'd had the chance to reply to Slim way up there when she wrote; "I'm asking you now to show some of that absolute integrity, accountability, and approachability. When you said in July 2008 that you had not previously heard that your earliest edits had been oversighted in December 2007 — during the ArbCom election — were you telling the truth? [52]" - understanding what went on there is sort of on the edge of my radar, and it'd be good to resolve. best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- geez... dunno what happened there - I missed the thread above completely.... oh well, add my voice to the 'please just answer this question' brigade :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've thoroughly read the thread above now! - c'mon FT - please stop being evasive - either you lied to Alex or not - seems to me that maybe you're sort of saying you did, and what's stalling things is your seeking permission to fully explain why. That's about the most charitable explanation I can think of, but regardless - please just answer the question - sunlight being the best disinfectant 'n all that... Privatemusings (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
RE: WP:SPI
Hey, thats not a problem. Sock puppet investigation is, justifiably, more important than our little wikiproject so I'm perfectly happy for the new sock puppet investigation page to take the WP:SPI shortcut, I've already switched to using WP:SPIR instead and relinked WP:SPI to the sock puppet page.
Thank you very much for asking, your tact was very much appreciated, most people wouldn't bother.
For your troubles, have a kitteh 
Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. And don't feed him too much corn!
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Blocked
I'm afraid I've found it unavoidable to block you for disruption in relation to the thread "Promised clarifications" above, FT2. Please see ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC).
- A request - I asked Bishonen to reconsider this. However, I also ask that no one unilaterially unblock. This is an extremely delicate situation and any action right now may result in many problems, including possible Wheel Warring. We really do not need this. Please lets talk and not resort to hasty actions. Bishonen, please reconsider. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- You know, time was we blocked editors for disruption. Blocking to get attention and make a fuss doesn't seem very sensible to me. --TS 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
RFAR
I have named you at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bishzilla. You may wish to make a statement. DurovaCharge! 22:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Necessary Clarification
In his first detailed statement on the oversight matter [53], FT2 made material misstatements of fact requiring clarification.
1. Contrary to FT2's statement that he had no memorable contact with David Gerard and that David had "never encountered" him as of July 2007, FT2 and David Gerard did in fact meet personally sometime prior to December 6, 2007, as evidenced by an email from Gerard to Arbcom-L on that date.
- Defense: FT2's defense as I understand it is two-fold. First, Wikipedia Review was attempting to "out" him and he wanted to avoid giving them what amounted to confirmation of his general geographic location. Second, the real point of the statement was that he and Gerard were not "good friends", and that there was no "fix" to get him elected to Arbcom by oversighting the edits.
- My argument For the record, I do not think that the edits would have changed the outcome of the election. Wikipedia is influenced strongly by counter-cultural and alternative trends, and very few people (if any) would have had a problem with a couple of 3 year old edits. FT2 also has the right to protect his personal information as he sees fit. He could have made a truthful statement that was vague and non-specific, or remained silent. Having chosen to make a detailed statement, he had an obligation to make a truthful one. Using as proof an Arbcom-L message from July 2007 while ignoring the message from December 6 was intentionally deceptive.
2. Contrary to FT2's statement that he only found out when the oversight log was fixed (in October) and contrary to his statement that he first heard about the oversight matter in July [54], Jimbo discussed that fact that edits had been oversighted in an email to FT2 dated December 11 2007. (Furthermore, Peter Damian and FloNight raised the matter in emails to Arbcom-L on April 22 and May 2 2008, respectively.
- Defense FT2 states that he did not notice the requests for information about the oversighted edits in the April and May emails since they were not the main subjects of the messages, and that he just forgot about the December 11 message.
- My argument It is admittedly peculiar that FT2 would send me a copy of the December 11, 2007 email if he were trying to hide it. Could he really have "just discovered it" in his email program? I find this hard to believe. The email came in the context of Jimbo vetting FT2 for Arbcom and FT2 explaining why the edits cited by someone else were no big deal. I don't remember every email I received last December but I think if someone was accusing me of what FT2 was being accused of and I had to explain myself to Jimbo in order to secure an Arbcom appointment, I think I might remember.
3. Although he does not seem to specifically state as much, the whole tone and content of the message is intended to convey the message that FT2 did not ask for oversight and did not know about it. In fact, FT2 has told me that he asked several admins for help dealing with what he considered defamation on a blog. David Gerard was one of them.
- Defense FT2 says he asked several admins for "help" but did not specifically ask for oversight.
- Argument Maybe so. The problem is that the message overall is deceptive in that it presents an argument that FT2 did not ask for help and did not know what kind of help had been provided, when in fact he did ask for help and did know at the time how he had been helped.
Conclusion The oversight mess ought never have happened. Having happened, it could have been dealt with by a simple public acknowledgment of David's mistake and apology, something I hope the Review Board is prepared to do should it become necessary. Having been revealed in November, FT2 had a responsibility to tell the truth, or at least keep silent. Having acknowledged to me on December 22 that these clarifications were appropriate, there is no credible excuse for a further 3 week delay. While it is to Arbcom's advantage to have a chance to review the matter before making a public comment, it is only to FT2's advantage to delay publication if he thinks that during the delay he can persuade Arbcom to come to his defense. I don't consider that particularly honorable behavior. I think that one purpose of the delayed and lengthy discussion among the Arbitrators is to persuade them that these small untruths are insignificant in the larger scheme of events (hence the 105KB explanation FT2 referred to above). I just don't believe you can build a larger truth if your building blocks include smaller untruths. Thatcher 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not to niggle, but couldn't he have not had significant contact with DG prior to July 2007 and also have met him sometime prior to December 2007? Is it possible there was some confusion relating to the oversight edits that made FT2 overlook the issue in December of 2007, but come to a new understanding of the seriousness of the situation nearly a year later? Is it possible that he asked for help from multiple admins, but wasn't at the time specifically informed that some of whatever form of help he received came as oversight of some edits? I'm not saying all of these "possibilities" are necessarily true, only that you (and others) have taken essentially the most negative interpretation of events as true instead. Now that all this urgently required information is available to the public, hopefully the clock will start ticking down on when everyone here can find some other way to enjoy their time on Wikipedia. Avruch T 01:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Further, and maybe this is just a deficiency on my part, nothing about his message suggests that he did not ask for assistance with the defamation issue. In fact, while it isn't stated directly its implied - obviously the defamation concern related to himself, and that he's aware of efforts to mitigate it suggests he asked for some assistance. I'm also curious - what possible purpose could he have had for misstating the date at which he was first notified of the oversight issue? Where is the benefit for him? Was the oversight log available in December 2007, did he have access to it at that time, and would that indicate that his explanation of needing to wait until the log was fixed to look into it is false? If the log was broken in December, or he didn't have access to it until sometime later and it was broken then, then why would he lie? If he was simply incorrect, then who cares? I'm sure seeming to defend FT2 at this point is wiki-political suicide, but while I understand the seriousness of an arbitrator lying to cover up misconduct... That doesn't seem to be the only possible conclusion to draw at this point, and as Bishonen just this evening pointed out - AGF is a core principle of Wikipedia. Avruch T 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- When he was asked about the oversight matter in July, the log was broken. However, he had exchanged emails with Jimbo about it in December, so he didn't need the log. Although perhaps he really did just forget, I am not a mind reader. I feel it is necessary to explain that the issue had been brought to his attention several times prior to when he said it had. He can explain why he did not deal with it before December 2008. Thatcher 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Further, and maybe this is just a deficiency on my part, nothing about his message suggests that he did not ask for assistance with the defamation issue. In fact, while it isn't stated directly its implied - obviously the defamation concern related to himself, and that he's aware of efforts to mitigate it suggests he asked for some assistance. I'm also curious - what possible purpose could he have had for misstating the date at which he was first notified of the oversight issue? Where is the benefit for him? Was the oversight log available in December 2007, did he have access to it at that time, and would that indicate that his explanation of needing to wait until the log was fixed to look into it is false? If the log was broken in December, or he didn't have access to it until sometime later and it was broken then, then why would he lie? If he was simply incorrect, then who cares? I'm sure seeming to defend FT2 at this point is wiki-political suicide, but while I understand the seriousness of an arbitrator lying to cover up misconduct... That doesn't seem to be the only possible conclusion to draw at this point, and as Bishonen just this evening pointed out - AGF is a core principle of Wikipedia. Avruch T 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good grief, is this what all the fuss is about? Somebody made some edits and somebody else oversighted them. I'm really worried to see that such a trivial matter can so easily become a cause celebre. --TS 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't care about the oversighted edits themselves. I accept that David goofed and apologized. I do not think there was a conspiracy to fraudulently elect FT2. I do think FT2 was less than truthful in discussing this issue over the past months, and that is an issue for an arbitrator. Thatcher 02:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Election fraud? The person who brought it up, a quality contributor of five years, banned for his efforts? Pull your head out of your ass, Tony. --Duk 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not quite that simple, although an explanation about the relationship between that block and this issue might be helpful. Actually, I kind of agree with Tony that this isn't as big a deal as some are making it, at least as far as FT2's concerned. I'm more concerned about David Gerard's misuse of the oversight tool. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- In a project where editors are anonymous, we only have one's contributions to judge them by. FT2's contributions were falsified to hide embarrassing edits and help his election. If this is allowed to stand the project will suffer greatly. David Gerard's misuse of the oversight tool is only one facet. --Duk 02:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not quite that simple, although an explanation about the relationship between that block and this issue might be helpful. Actually, I kind of agree with Tony that this isn't as big a deal as some are making it, at least as far as FT2's concerned. I'm more concerned about David Gerard's misuse of the oversight tool. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Election fraud? The person who brought it up, a quality contributor of five years, banned for his efforts? Pull your head out of your ass, Tony. --Duk 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- FT2, please resign from the ArbCom, and as checkuser and oversighter. The very long statements and the requests for delays are serving to obscure what a simple matter this is, namely that you were asked an important question onwiki, and you appear to have lied in response. Regardless of any other issue, that means you must resign and allow the new ArbCom to retain the trust of the community that has just elected it. It's time to fall on your sword. People will respect you for it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- If people, in possession of the facts, think this was no big deal, then I will be happy to live with that. Thatcher 02:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Response to Thatcher
I hope this Arbcom will not assess people on anything other than facts and evidence, and conclusions drawn from them. Not hearsay and conclusions drawn from it.
Thatcher - I respect you, and for you, this whole matter cannot be an easy matter to decide upon. I cannot comment fully on #1 and #3 as they touch on various people including myself and Peter Damian. I have a commitment to avoid as best I can talking about Damian on-wiki. I made that commitment seriously, and I will do my best to keep it. So some parts of your explanations cannot be fully discussed. Nonetheless even excluding those, there is material above which is in serious error. That, at least, I can clear up.
- A) Emails - What you find unlikely, is very heavily evidenced indeed at Arbcom.
- I didn't just "avoid" Damian. I had not one, but three separate rounds of emails on the Arbcom mailing list, and other dialogs, that I would consider it grossly improper to be shown any email by him which might relate to a ban appeal, and if Arbcom would not hold the discussion privately I would ensure I would not read any such myself. Peter Damian was planning an appeal. It would be grossly improper for any arb to be party to the deliberations who was involved in the case. I asked to not be shown such mails; then I asked again; then I asked a third time. I stated it was important to me that Damian knew he would have a fair hearing, and that I would take steps not to read mails that might be about it. Emails including a Damian email, I stopped and archived immediately. One email i replied to was in fact a reply to my query. I top-answered it on my concern alone, and sent it.
- Significance: Your assumption was grossly mistaken and had you waited for Arbcom you would have found this. There was no way at all I would have read either of the two emails you reference above, and that is hard evidenced by a heavy duty dialog emphasizing the importance of ethically avoiding doing so, even by chance.
- B) Jimbo mail - Jimbo indeed emailed me on December 11. This puzzled you, so you decided It is admittedly peculiar that FT2 would send me a copy of the December 11, 2007 email if he were trying to hide it. Could he really have "just discovered it" in his email program? I find this hard to believe.
- Again, Thatcher... you lacked background information on the privacy matters. This email was not "out there". It was from Jimbo to myself, and not one other person on or off wiki knew of its existance. That's crucial. And Jimbo forgot it himself (he had admitted he couldn't remember most of the December issues). I discovered it because, for the first time in a year, I was sifting my old emails from that era. Why did I find it just then? Because (check the timing) that was when Peter Damian's RFAR appeal was happening, and I was preparing evidence, so for the first time in a year I had to search for and review the Damian-related material in the archive folder.
- What was my reaction? And this is crucial. Put yourself in this position. In July I told people I hadn't heard of a matter. In December I found that I had been sent an email on it... and I was the only person on the planet to know of it. Jimbo might have, but he had said he'd forgotten it all. Not one other person knew. What did I do? I emailed Jimbo CC David Gerard with full disclosure to say "I have come across this, I think I need to disclose it." Can you think of a single reason a dishonest person would do so? It is an act of only high ethics and integrity, to self report a matter that nobody else could possibly know, or could ever find out.
- But suppose you ask if I might have remembered it. After all, email from Jimbo! This is where you got it wrong yet again. Context. The middle of the Arbcom election, a 6 week marathon with a 400 K answers page, so intense I took a wikibreak just before Dec 13, I received an email... to tell me that Jimbo is happy with my answers, and "oh by the way" some edits got oversighted but they will be fixed by the devs. That message was a blur (no action needed, mid election) and gone in hours, as was anything other than email answering and question answering. The current arbs know how tough the election is. It could have been a Nobel Prize and I would have archived and forgotten the way I was feeling with election stress. I took a wikibreak mid arbcom election [55]. Says it all.
- The question by Alex? That was answered in a brief online session..... the day after an immediate member of the family died, the day before I had to bury him/her, in the immediate storm of the OM case, and with a broken PC. In that context when someone asked "can I confirm or deny X" my answer was "I cant as I dont have access, and its the first Ive heard of it". And it was said honestly and to try and help.
- It should also be said that most references to this were just "the edits" or "the oversighted edits". Damian wanted "administrators" to handle it. It was vague. I had slightly more devastating things to do at the time... like gather a family and various kids within the family, and tell them a loved one had died. THAT was December 2007, and THAT was July 4. Some holiday, eh?
- Significance: You got this really badly wrong.
- I didn't read the emails because I would not be party to Damian having any fear of unfair hearing. This is a very strongly evidenced statement.
- I had fairly demonstrably zero motive to disclose save for utter high ethics since nobody knew.
- The Dec 2007 email came in the middle of my roughest patch on-wiki, and the reply which you find inaccurate came in the middle of a death, OM, and a computer meltdown.
- Significance: You got this really badly wrong.
- C) "help" - Last, does it need saying that asking for help was asking for technical help in connection to a defamatory blog post. I asked a wide range of people if anyone knew anything about "take-down" notices, Google caching, and the like. Arbcom has in evidence, a sample of such a dialog and the name of the user concerned. The help I got was in relation to that. I asked almost everyone I knew of any technical nature. And indeed, I found someone who knew how. That too was evidenced at Arbcom.
- Significance: You assumed badly yet again. You assume with zero basis whatsoever "[he] did know at the time how he had been helped". Of course I did. I was helped by removal of a defamatory post. But I was completely unaware that any oversighting took place. David Gerard and I spoke of it in October 2008... which may itself in turn evidence one other thing.
- In July I told Alex B, that I would find what had happened (if anything) when the log was up. On October 9 the Oversight Log was notified to Arbcom as restored. By October 10 I had checked, and found out what had gone on. That was before anyone was asking about it. That too is evidenced completely. That shows, I think, diligence, to follow it up.
Thatcher... you were unable to believe you didn't know the full story. You forum shopped this whole drama with Jimbo, the wiki, and Arbcom. Failing that, and even being told that Arbcom was looking into it and would resolve it, knowing I had told you there was more to it than that -- you dumped your complete guesswork on the wiki as "facts", and this is the result.
I have just one question. Do you plan to contest any of the above corrections? Because every statement above is evidenced to the ground, and is bedrock solid. Even down to Damian's own tacit admission (according to you) that the oversighted edit would not have swayed the election (it didn't), and Giano's view that the edit as an edit, was not an apparent problem. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- You say you made your July 2008 claim (that it was the first you'd heard of the oversighting) in haste and in the middle of a personal crisis, and therefore it wasn't a lie, but an error. But you repeated the same claim on November 27, 2008 in a post on this page: "they [the oversighted edits claims] were first mentioned to me in July ..." [56] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The key evidence that this was not so was Jimbos email. But Jimbo's email turned up during Damian's RFAR evidence review.... after Nov 27. Also, July 4 was when I first took an interest in them (which is when you remember things from). As at Nov 27, for both these reasons, I still had that belief and replied as I did. I believed that to be so, until December 9, when I immediately recognized the error and emailed Jimbo and David Gerard to notify them and ask advice how to disclose it. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- But you were told about the oversighting on December 11, 2007 (in an e-mail from Jimbo), and on April 22, 2008 and May 2, 2008 (in e-mails from FloNight and Peter Damian). Are you saying you received or read none of these e-mails — or didn't remember that you'd received or read them — until after November 27, 2008? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to see FT2 confirm that clearly and succinctly — without surrounding it with a thousand other words — namely that he did not read, or did not recall reading, Jimbo's December 2007 e-mail, or FloNight and Peter Damian's April and May 2008 e-mails, alerting him to the oversighting of his first edits to Wikipedia, until after November 27, 2008 — even though he acknowledges that he knew about the oversighting by July 2008 at the latest. In other words that, even when alerted to the oversighting in July 2008 by Alex B, he still did not recall already having been told about it at least three times, one of those times by Jimbo Wales. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- FT2 did say in one of his emails to me from December 2008 that he had deliberately avoided reading Arbcom-L messages about Peter Damian. He says above that he was so busy he missed Jimbo's email, and he said in an email to me regarding that message from Jimbo, To not note an obscure and transient email during an immensely busy time is not a crime. To not recollect it 7 months later and say one has not heard of it, is not a crime either. Memory is not infallible - mine's good, but this was passing and trivial and quickly forgotten in December 2007. Make of that what you will. Thatcher 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- SV - a quick answer that I hope meets your need. 1/ On July 4, when I wrote that post, I believed it to be honest and accurate. 2/ I continued to believe it to be accurate at all times (namely that I had first heard of it on July 4) up until December 9 2008 when I found an email in my archives related to it from an earlier date and immediately sought advice. 3/ My actions in that time, including checking for myself the day I heard the oversight log was back, and disclosure of an email nobody else on the planet could possibly ever know existed if I didn't tell them, evidence my honest belief and sincerity - that I was willing to be embarrassed for memory lapse rather than hide a matter from the community that I could never be "called" on if I hid it, is no small thing. The reason for that is extremely well evidenced at Arbcom, namely, the ethical imperative not to read Damian-related emails being a party in his appeal, and my strong determination that even if sent them by Arbcom against my will I had taken steps not to accidentally read them. Those emails are 100% citable on-wiki (since I wrote them and need no permission to do so) and verifiable (since they were sent to Arbcom). Let me know if you need them cited or if this statement is enough. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- FT2 did say in one of his emails to me from December 2008 that he had deliberately avoided reading Arbcom-L messages about Peter Damian. He says above that he was so busy he missed Jimbo's email, and he said in an email to me regarding that message from Jimbo, To not note an obscure and transient email during an immensely busy time is not a crime. To not recollect it 7 months later and say one has not heard of it, is not a crime either. Memory is not infallible - mine's good, but this was passing and trivial and quickly forgotten in December 2007. Make of that what you will. Thatcher 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to see FT2 confirm that clearly and succinctly — without surrounding it with a thousand other words — namely that he did not read, or did not recall reading, Jimbo's December 2007 e-mail, or FloNight and Peter Damian's April and May 2008 e-mails, alerting him to the oversighting of his first edits to Wikipedia, until after November 27, 2008 — even though he acknowledges that he knew about the oversighting by July 2008 at the latest. In other words that, even when alerted to the oversighting in July 2008 by Alex B, he still did not recall already having been told about it at least three times, one of those times by Jimbo Wales. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are entitled to disagree with my interpretations and I expect you to do so. Nevertheless the fact remains that you stated you had not met David Gerard, when you had, and you stated you did not know the edits were oversighted, when you did.
- You did say in your emails to me that you had been deliberately avoiding reading Arbcom emails that mentioned the Peter Damian case.
- You should have taken David's advice of Dec 9, 2008 to reveal everything honestly. Instead, you have spent 35 days delaying, using Arbcom and Peter Damian as excuses. You did not need Jimbo's permission to say on-wiki, "I just found an email from 2007 where Jimbo talks about oversight, that I had honestly forgotten." Yes, that would have been hard for some people to swallow, but easier then than now, or whenever in the future you might have decided to post it. Similarly, you can't hide behind Peter Damian and Arbcom on the issue of whether or not you knew David Gerard before the edits were oversighted. You volunteered on Dec 1 that you had not met, you quoted from a July 2007 email to prove it. How can it possibly require the permission of Peter Damian and/or Arbcom for you to restate the timeline accurately? Both Jimbo and FloNight told you your statement was misleading and asked you to correct it. All the Arbitrators can see the Dec 6 2007 email from David Gerard saying he met you and what a great guy you are. You would have had to explain then, as you did to me, that the point was that David "barely knew" you and would not have "fixed" an election for you; valid points, but I never said the election was fixed for you.
- I dispute your characterization of the content of Jimbo's email as an "oh by the way" reference to the oversighted edits, but I do not have permission to quote the email.
- "Forum shopping"? I contacted Jimbo and yourself. On December 22 I wrote you with 4 proposed clarifications (#3 and 4 are combined in my above post) and said, "If you want to publicly walk back your problematic statements and let the community take over I will certainly end my part in this discussion." You replied, "That was roughly my thinking too." After 15 days of no further communications, I emailed my concerns to Arbcom, and posted a very brief note here. Today I posted essentially the same things I mailed Arbcom. You call this forum shopping, how do you suggest I should have handled it?
- I have not even mentioned yet your phone call to me of December 4, which, although not the only factor in my resignation, was the tipping point. It is impossible to make an NPOV characterization of an upsetting personal phone call, but I really don't think you acted in that phone call with any great deal of ethics, and I certainly have problems with an arbitrator, who is also a party to a dispute, calling an admin on the phone and contesting an unblock decision for 45 minutes. This is not a matter of factual clarification, but could certainly be included in an RFC.
- Finally, returning to the December 11 2007 email from Jimbo, this is not a nice thing of me to say, perhaps, but I feel I have to get it off my chest. Disclosing the Dec 11 2007 email is the act of an ethical person, but it is also the act of someone who is utterly convinced that everything they have done is correct and doubters can be converted as long as you explain it at enough length. You've had 35 days to make just a few simple statements, instead you have made excuses and called various delays. It is obvious now that all this delay has been so you can put together your explanation for Arbcom (105K, that's roughly 15,000 words) so that whatever the deviation between the plain facts and your statements, there would be an explanation, and back-up from Arbcom that it was no big deal. Honestly, it really would have been no big deal had you corrected it yourself on December 6 when you found the emails, and when Jimbo and FloNight asked you to. And, if I'm being honest, I still find it difficult to believe that you completely forgot about Jimbo's email, or, that having legitimately forgotten, you exhibited no intellectual curiosity or due diligence about the matter at all. To be blunt, you were accused of bad things, the accuser and his accusations were made to vanish into thin air, and you never wanted to know more. Jimbo's email telling you that he was satisfied with your explanation of the edits but there was still the problem of oversight was "passing and trivial." You never, before the oversight log was fixed in October, went back to look at those diffs and found them missing. You never asked of Jimbo or Arbcom-L or oversight-L, "hey, what happened to those edits Damian was flogging on his blog." You never, even in July when asked by AlexB, performed the simple experiment of searching your gmail archive for messages containing the terms "Renamed user 4" and "oversight". Let all these things be true then, and let the community decide. Like I said, maybe the community's verdict will be that I am wrong, I have wronged you, and judge me accordingly. Thatcher 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Quick answers:
- I stated accurately about David Gerard; the rest of this is not something to discuss on-wiki. It has however been discussed with Arbcom. The statement was honest and reasonable.
- Again you aren't thinking about timing. A matter like this needs disclosure, and the disclosure is not simple. Most evidence is private. I can make the statement above because (and only because) I have made prior disclosure of a lot of privacy related material to Arbcom (arb emails, etc), who can verify it. Now look at the timing which you keep forgetting. Dec 9 was mid arb-election. The existing 2008 arbcom was moribund, and the new arbs would be seen as independent; also opening a major arbcom drama by disclosing a matter then saying the evidence couldn't be checked would have been gross drama. In effect there was no arbcom suitable to make disclosure to and take advice of, until this one was appointed. The new arbitrators were appointed December 20. On Dec 24 I sent an email titled "Heads up (personal)" stating an intent to make full disclosure, and on Dec 26 I asked a colleague to check a statement; their view was to verify my proposed approach with the committee, so on December 26 I sent an email to the committee titled "Urgent - advice sought" in which I stated "An urgent request for advice today, please. I have some accounting and disclosure to do to the community. Some is completely unavoidable, others I have a very deep wish to be open on instead.", and asked for views on a statement, on RFC, and on RFAR. With the exception of a short delay in January while I worked on other matters, the time since then has involved discussion of this case, OM, and other arbcom agenda items (this isn't the only matter needing input from the new committee as they have said).
- It was completely a "by the way" email. At that point of the election, anything with a style of "here's some information on something I'm going to do, nothing needs doing by you, I'm getting it fixed" is a cursory skim and move to archive. An email from the Pope saying "you are being beatified would have been archived in moments too, as was anything that didn't need action or response.
- You posted to Jimbo with your demands and views, then Arbcom, then repeatedly to my talk page despite knowing it was actively under discussion, and now this.
- If you want to drag out the phone call, then you might include the part where I asked explicitly and very unmistakably if you were okay and when you said you had reservations, I stepped back to avoid impacting on them and went with your view on it. Again this is in the context of "party" not "arbitrator" -- you were explicitly in the process of undoing without consent as a sole admin, an anti-harassment ban that you lacked full knowledge of (Arbcom has the full details you never knew), that had previously been deemed "Arbcom only" (email of Oct 21 2008 by Arbcom in which I recused: This is to announce to you that the ArbCom has concluded the following... editing privileges remain revoked, and may apply to have them reinstated only after a couple of months by appeal to the Committee), a "good faith" mistake which nonetheless could not be discussed and explained on-wiki, like any other serious harassment matter. Your posts and emails suggested you were likely unaware of that and I have assumed good faith that you were not.
- As said, and as further evidenced above, far from delaying, I approached the new Arbcom almost as soon as it existed to ask for "urgent advice today". The problems with making a statement where the evidence (arbcom emails, discussion of Damian, etc) could not be provided on-wiki on demand, or posting a topic that might have blown up into a debate on the entirety of the 2008 Arbcom in the middle of the very arbcom elections, seem obvious to me. Consultation was essential, and done almost the first day it was possible, as soon as the new committee existed.
- Last, there was no way to look for any diffs and find them missing, without the oversight log. Perhaps some users memorize the edits they make. I've made 30k of them and I doubt I could tell you any of them. "My first edit" might be something of deep importance to some users; I haven't memorized them and were it not for explicitly being told where to look (oversight log, October) I would not be able to verify the presence or absence of almost any edit out of my 30 K alleged to be missing. You also forget that the person who made those claims fabricated a wide range of other claims which were fantastical in style. I had no way to check if this was one more, in July, and said so. I noted despite this, the need to check anyway, and did in fact check the very first day I heard it was possible again. But at July 4 I had (in memory terms) the statement that "some edits were oversighted" and a question whether I could confirm or deny. The answer accurately was, no, I could not confirm or deny, but I would do so when the log came back. Which without asking I did. As witness that 3 months later I did so (October 9-10), and that this was done way before anyone asked it or nagged. That's not the act of someone deliberately delaying anything, Thatcher.
- I hope you see why I say, you were grievously wrong in your handling here. Almost everything you have claimed is inaccurate not just based on "say-so", but based on hard solid evidence. But I could not make that strength of statement without the most careful checking. Hence the 105 K documentation of emails, timelines and other evidence, to ensure accuracy in the matter. The community might forgive a slip made the day after a death about an email 7 months previous. It was not my intention to make any mistake in solidly re-checking and documenting the matter. That and good counsel how to proceed with this disclosure, was something I requested as soon as possible. This was not your judgement to make; you were being repeatedly told by Arbitrators that it was being active discussed and knew that to be the case. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Quick answers:
- You write above, "But at July 4 I had (in memory terms) the statement that 'some edits were oversighted' and a question whether I could confirm or deny. The answer accurately was, no, I could not confirm or deny, but I would do so when the log came back."
- You did not simply say on July 4 that you could not confirm or deny. You said that was the first you had heard of it. And that was false. Please focus on that issue, and that you misled us all about it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) See above and look at it with commonsense: In between a death and a funeral, a user posts me a comment "[T]hanks...! While you are here can you either confirm or deny that a few of your edits... were oversighted? Can you recollect the rationale for the actions?" I try to be helpful and not minimal in providing information (as witness Archtransit, Checkuser stats and many other matters). I could have said "no" alone. But that's not my way. I try to be as helpful as I can. In that circumstance, I added that this was the first I'd heard of it, because as best I knew at that time, it was an honest statement to say so. I added that I would try to verify it, if it was in the duration of the oversight log, and in fact I did check it -- and emailed David Gerard to ask for details and got answers. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just looked to see when the oversighted edits were first mentioned on Wikipedia Review. The first discussion I see there about it was on December 21, 2007. Are you seriously suggesting that you didn't look at any of those threads before July 2008, and that no one e-mailed you to alert you to them? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I knew Damian was stirring up generic drama on WR. I shrugged, left him to it, didn't pay much attention, and got on with enwiki Arbcom matters. No interest in following drama. Put this way, I also had no idea what was going on on Meta, and Meta is a lot closer to enwiki that WR. Or again, I haven't a clue right now what WR made of Damian's appeal, of your RFAR, or what it makes of this issue either. I'm based on enwiki and rarely go offsite. I created an account at WR in August/September 2008, though I had emailed their site owner briefly in April to inquire. So no, I had zero knowledge and/or memory of the "oversighted edits" threads at WR at July 4. Sorry, dead end there too. I just wasn't "plugged in" to WR. One user asked me about it by email which I believe must have been based on a WR thread but they seemed to be asking if I had oversighted some of my own edits which of course I hadn't, and they finally commented they had probably made a mistake. I found that while researching my Arbcom evidence, and I disclosed it, as I am doing here.
- So no, while some here read WR, that's their choice. I'm based on the wiki. A few vague mentions that a past banned harasser was rumored to be off making drama elsewhere does not amount to "ability to confirm or deny" or any kind of knowledge, and I was not tracking Damian either or visiting sites where he hung out. On July 4 when I posted, it was an honest comment as best I knew. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just looked to see when the oversighted edits were first mentioned on Wikipedia Review. The first discussion I see there about it was on December 21, 2007. Are you seriously suggesting that you didn't look at any of those threads before July 2008, and that no one e-mailed you to alert you to them? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The denials are reaching the point of being scary, quite frankly. You didn't ask David to oversight the edits. He didn't ask you if you minded if they were oversighted (so someone's going around oversighting non-libelous, non-identifying, non-copyright edits without anyone's consent or knowledge?). He didn't even tell you he had done it afterwards. You didn't notice that Wikipedia Review was discussing it. No one alerted you to it. You read Jimbo's December 2007 e-mail but you promptly forgot about it. You didn't read the ArbCom mailing list e-mails of April and May 2008. When people started asking onwiki in July, you didn't realize the importance of being accurate in your responses. You continued posting falsehoods, not realizing they were false until December 2008. Even then, you wouldn't make a statement onwiki, claiming you needed permission from X, Y, and Z, even though it was only your knowledge — only yours — that was being asked about.
- Can you see why people might find the above disturbing? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can see why some people who see conspiracies or worry about bad faith might. I'm not answerable for any other person, and if you ask David Gerard he'll affirm he told Jimbo, but not me. The non-reading of Damian's emails is a matter of integrity; I'd be disturbed by any arb who would not take that very seriously. The inquiry in july came between a death and a funeral and the evidence of integrity is clear from the actions taken to research and disclose everything, even if nobody else would ever have known it. And the privacy matters are documented at Arbcom. Sure I can see how someone who wants to interpret things their way, could do so. Why on earth do you think I wanted to consult (and took steps as soon as possible to consult) about the best way to do an urgent disclosure properly? That's exactly what Arbcom is for -- to review difficult divisive issues based on diffs, quoted emails, and other hard evidence; to advise or consider editors who wish to disclose privacy based material in a dispute or other matter; and to verify to the community what's a fair perception if there are privacy issues. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you see why people might find the above disturbing? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Forget the specifics being debated above for a moment FT2, though I'm sure someone will bring us back to that. Would you admit that you perhaps did not handle this situation as well as you could have? Because I don't see anything like that in your statements above and I think that is telling and will be to others as well. It's pretty obvious you could have dealt with this far more effectively than you did, but I'm not sure you recognize that.
Second, would you admit that you have lost the confidence of a significant percentage of Wikipedians who are aware of this situation? Because that seems pretty clear from numerous comments in multiple parts of the pedia. As an admin I know that if that much of the community was unhappy with my performance I would resign without even thinking about it (it's why I'm up for admin recall). Whether it was fair or not or what the exact rationale was would be irrelevant - if folks thought I was doing my job poorly I could not be a good admin after that and would thus resign the bit. I think it's pretty impossible for you to be a good Arbitrator at this point no matter where this ends up, and it might be good to start admitting that to yourself rather than working up another 105k answer to whatever comes next.
Obviously you care about this project, and obviously you know that being an Arb is no big deal in the scope of Wikipedia or life. This thing is either going to end messy and take up a lot of time and get a lot more people mad, or it can largely end now (less messy) if you step down, which is really the action you ought to take. Even if you think it's unfair, it's the right thing to do right now. You don't know me from Adam and I've only been aware of this controversy for a few hours since I don't contribute here as much at the moment, but I think I'm giving you good advice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're mistaken about recognizing you :) I've seen your name at least once, though I can't remember what on. Good memories though.
- What I find a concern is the number of people willing to judge despite knowing they don't know the case. I have given good faith on many occasions to users, and within reason, would expect it given too. So you may be right, but let's test it. Your contention is that I didn't handle it as well as I might. Here is some data (recapped from above):-
- First awareness of an actual mis-statement needing handling, Dec 9. Handling - disclosed to Jimbo, Dec 9.
- Disclosure to community held back due to 1/ concerns that I might be asked a privacy matter which could not be evidenced, 2/ ongoing arbcom election, 3/ lack of functional arbcom to disclose to and seek counsel from. Handling - disclosed to new arbcom almost immediately it formed (4 days after appointment) and "urgent advice" sought on disclosure, request whether self-RFAR would be accepted, etc.
- Promises made to disclose communally. handling - keeping those promised "in the loop" without being asked to do so (for example without reminding posted to SlimVirgin's talk page to affirm it wasn't forgotten [57][58], noted that various arbitrators had said to them as well that it was being dealt with, etc)
- Disclosure to Arbcom made in full and thoroughly to allow review of the topic.
- If you can specify one unreasonable or inappropriate "handling" action on this, please let me know, and discuss, and that's fine. But a generic claim that it was mishandled with no indication where or how... I take your point, but do you take mine, that that's not something I'd ask of anyone. More generally, I would like to be assessed on actual actions, not on assumptions of bad faith or lack of knowledge (not you but generally). That goes for the entire of the past year. It's not an unreasonable expectation.
- The other issue is this. Given that the majority of assumption here is badly misinformed (Thatcher is closer to the matter than almost any non-arb, and even his statement is riddled with hard-evidenced errors of assumption and fact), and given also, that the reality is that my work has been of a high quality and benefited the community very well (I am willing to evidence that if asked: what I've achieved for the community on Arbcom and how I've conducted the role).... does it serve the community better to 1/ remove a beneficial, seasoned, acts-with-integrity, productive user based on visible misassumptions and hearsay that isn't well backed up, or does it serve the community better to 2/ find some way to get at the truth of it and get genuine information as to what to believe and what not about this all?
- I would step down temporarily while the latter is taking place, but I would do so in the confidence that my actions both seen and unseen throughout last year, will be found to be of the highest standard by a reasonable and experienced review. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
RfC
As we seem to be making little progress with discussions on multiple pages, I've filed an RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FT2. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)