User talk:FT2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Privatemusings (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 26 August 2009 (→‎Suggestion: bit more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • Archived talk page comments: /Archive
    Closed topics are archived to approx. June 15 2009.
Current discussion summaries
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)


 
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


The Signpost
25 April 2024
 

Summer Wikibreak

just in case

I dropped a note in here :-) - hope you're good... Privatemusings (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador Retriever

The peer review has been archived (though you should still look there for some constructive points on how to improve the article further). I have updated the {{ArticleHistory}} of the article at the talk page accordingly, at Talk:Labrador Retriever. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamHost COI

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments at Talk:DreamHost. If it is not inappropriate, can you offer me any advice for how I might be able to defend myself against this kind of stuff from a rather abusive user? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for mediation/OpenNote

In your e-mail to MedCom, you mentioned the changes you have made to the note to users opening a request for mediation. Your changes are a real improvement, IMO. I've made some edits; no big changes, just clarified a few points. I would say that the committee is generally neutral as to whether users wish to engage in mediation. We don't encourage people to try mediation, they must choose it. Often the more that choice is their own, the more likely the mediation will succeed.

I was puzzled by one aspect of your e-mail message: use of the word "parties." A definition that I am partial to is: "a person or people forming one side in an agreement or dispute." Parties thus seems to me the more neutral term as it deals with either agreement or dispute. That is the essence of mediation, don't you think: To turn a dispute into an agreement?

A minor point compared to your very helpful changes to the note. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a dispute, the naming by one user that another person is "a party" has often in the past been used or taken as a confrontational gesture, with disputes in some cases related to aggrieved users who wake up one day to find someone has now listed them as a "party" on some other page of the wiki. We might not push people to mediation but we do hold the door in an open and reassuring manner. I agree that in theory it's neutral, but in practice I'd question whether it's the most reassuring neutral term that's possible. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ANI matters

If you're visiting my talk page to discuss some recent edits reported at ANI, I am aware of the situation but the matter has been handled by other administrators and is quickly closed.

In accordance with my commitment of December 18 2008, I will not participate in communal discussions or threads about it, except in the context of formal dispute resolution processes (if needed), since that could provoke engagement by the user involved. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Luna Santin has closed your request regarding Peter, so I'm reposting my question from it below. I think it would make sense for you to clarify this once and for all, because it's obviously going to keep on being raised—though I want to stress that I don't support people adding sock tags to your page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FT, can you say definitively whether you were TBP (talk · contribs)? Peter was blocked for having posted a sockpuppet tag on that page, saying you had admitted it somewhere. I don't defend his posting the tag, or reverting to retain it, but it would be good to know whether there was truth in what he was saying, even if he expressed it inappropriately. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That account is not me. It was a co-editor from long ago; we last collaborated in 2006. If you have further questions you can ask John Vandenberg. An arbcom ruling flatly forbids even indirect wiki interaction by me with a user you name. See the previous section above for more.
"Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia" [1]
FT2 (Talk | email) 05:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the response. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
heh.. this has a vaguely familiar feel, being on this page, posting in a thread with Slim asking smallish direct questions - funny old world.
I've been reading through some of the TBP diff.s and am beginning to feel that there's a bit further explanation required for a few things (nothing PD related incidentally) - are you cool if I ask a few questions here? - or is there a better spot, or something I don't know? Privatemusings (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response to a similar question above, and its reasons, and respect them. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_anarchy and WP:NHBE wikilink

I just removed the WP:NHBE wikilink you added on the basis that it is a "working draft" and has not yet gained consensus for adoption. We can take this discussion to the policy's talk page if you disagree.  Nuβiατεch Talk/contrib 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and project pages often link to information pages, informal but non-controversial views, and other pages. It was in that sense that it's an appropriate link, not because it is itself a communally endorsed page. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please don't post again on Bishonen's talk page, for the good of Wikipedia. We don't need battles. Jehochman Talk 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only looks like a simple question to me. Chillum 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An admin has asked a question to Bishonen that directly affects other matters. While it's not a matter for formal resolution; it's a serious point and should not be ignored. Instead of deterring reasonable inquiries in a reasonable manner on a point of concern [2][3], a better way to stop a battle might be to ask those posting like this to not post if they have no helpful contribution, and ask that posts like this be rewritten to leave aside all rhetoric and simply talk about the actual point of concern. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea to address your concerns at a neutral location. User's may feel cornered on their own talk pages, and their friends may respond excessively. Please, please, please, we don't need a huge battle, and I am afraid that's what's about to happen. If you start a discussion some place else, I will be glad to deliver an invitation to Bishonen or anybody else to attend and comment if they wish to. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not the best idea for you to certify an RFC against Bishonen. There is a widespread perception that you have been in a lengthy feud with her. I know you don't feel that you have been feuding, but nevertheless there is no way Bishonen or others will accept your certification as valid. If she were to launch an RFC against you, I'd say the same thing the other way around. Would you consider rescinding your certification, putting the RFC on hold, and asking somebody who has good relations with both of you to attempt to mediate at a neutral location? Jehochman Talk 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


FT2...If you want, I could mediate between you and Bishonen...I doubt I would be successful since everyone knows I am a nasty person, but I can give it a shot. I am well known for my cool temperment, ability to put passion aside and to never take sides in a dispute...right? RIGHT? (You're supposed to just agree with me...it works out better that way).--MONGO 01:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is the point, which you seem to be missing; you are precisely the wrong person to ever consider opening an Rfc on Bishonen. I don't know how much more clear I can be. The Rfc was poorly conceived and an all round bad idea. Regardless of your concerns, it looks and smells like vengeance, and will lead to nothing productive. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed that experienced users would take a stance based on preconception and bad faith, not evidence. Asking for comment is a request where the concerned user stands back, so the community can consider the evidence.
I'm disappointed too that experienced users might assume such mindless motives and not check them. It would have been trivial to ask this and not assume it. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm insulted and angry if you are referring to me as one of those who supposedly took a stance "based on preconception and bad faith". You seem to be oblivious to what we're actually saying, and repeating yourself like a broken record will not change that you are wrong. You should AGF a good bit more yourowndamnself, FT2, if you're going to be slinging accusations like that you'll find you've managed to offend people who were trying to help you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is a common occurrence for otherwise valid facts to be ignored because of who has said them, but I don't think such a mode of thinking is something to strive towards, in fact such thinking is something to avoid. The whole point of an RFC is to get the input of people outside of the situation. Chillum 00:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, I kind of agree with the above, for the most part. While I think that the Bishonen closure was a mistake that is going to come back and haunt a few folks, it was indeed closed. The good thing about the wiki is that if someone's cocked up before, they are more than likely to cock up again. As I have an admitted problem with (for example) DreamGuy, anything I say - even if accurate and cited to the heavens - is going to be looked at with a gimlet eye because of my admitted dislike. For that reason, I think its best to note your initial concerns, hopefully as part of a chorus of voices doing so, and keep your distance. If the person is as much of a net-loss to the project as another editor thinks, then chances are good that others are going to see it as well. Let them do the connecting. You need to step back from this now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Resolved
 – Discussion is going nowhere productive at this point. Both sides need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 00:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have closed the the Bishonen RFC per the motion to close. Hopefully we can all move on in a positive and productive manner. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  10:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sure got swept under the rug. It appears the evidence is less important than people's desire to not talk about it. Chillum 13:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum, on many occasions I have observed you "going at it" with Bishonen. Your comment is provocative, and therefore unhelpful. Wikipedia is for writing articles, not for political battles. Jehochman Talk 13:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any past history I may have in no way effects the presence of the evidence. Chillum 13:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, we spoke about this kind of thing at RFC. In private, you admitted openly that the issue "may be 100% correct, factually". In public you chose to assert pure bad faith, saying nothing of the fact you actually thought the evidence might be significant.
You justified this huge difference between your public and private views by saying something about PR reasons, later toning down your original post but not reflecting this more forthright view on the case [4].
That is considerably more political an approach to Wikipedia than any you criticize above. I told you at the time Wikipedia issues are not decided by via "PR". In effect you posted for popularity at the RFC, not evidence based consideration.
Here you're doing exactly the same game as well: criticizing someone as "political" and "unhelpful", for observing that evidence was mostly not reviewed and responded to, but rather dismissed. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My god, you really do have no clue. You're attacking Jehochman for speaking sense to you and giving you good advice. Your complaints may indeed be 100% true. OTOH, they may be utter bullshit. Here is the key bit you keep missing: it literally does not matter in this instance, because of who you are. You are the wrong person to raise concerns about Bishonen. Now, I can try to explain this to you again, but you really need to stop acting as though people are rejecting your concerns because of who you are or your past. We're not. We're telling you that even if your concerns are valid, you are the wrong person to open and Rfc on her. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That, KC, depends whether you define "clue" as "understanding and abetting political processes" or "understanding and abetting wikipedia norms".
The human political process is to base decisions on populism, personalities and rhetoric. The wikipedia process is to start from an initial presumption that concerns expressed are in good faith, then look at evidence in the form of diffs or past history. I know which, as a community member, administrator, past arbcom member, and otrs member, I endorse and follow as best I can.
Saying in the same paragraph "it literally does not matter because of who you are" and also "you need to stop acting as though people are rejecting your concerns because of who you are"... is an inconsistency.
Or are you proposing as a norm: "Users and administrators who have a good-faith concern about a users conduct supported by diffs, are the wrong person to present the concern for formal dispute resolution if that user does not like them." According to ANI, RFC and RFAR, that view is pretty unusual. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above, and I don't appreciate the hostility and sarcasm. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the blunt language, FT2; I am getting testy for a variety of reasons, only some of which are frustration due to not being able, somehow, to communicate clearly to you. Both in email and here you seem to be convinced that those who think you opening an Rfc on Bishonen is a very bad idea either a) disagree with your concerns or b) are judging your concerns based on past history. I'm here to tell you that if Bishonen peed on the president's rug in front of 20 newscams and you started an Rfc on it, I'd tell you it was a bad idea. I'm not judging your concerns; I'm not paying any attention to them, because you are the wrong person to open an Rfc on her. Whether you are open to this or not, surely you note which views on the Rfc had the most support; the community is in agreement that you should have not opened that Rfc. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Pardon me for interjecting, but were you expecting Happiness and Light™ after you insulted FT2? I refer of course to the comment, "My god, you really do have no clue" or calling the user a "broken record". My suggestion is that in addition to carting around Heimstern's advice about Ignoring incivility in your user sig, you might wish to endeavor to forego offering incivility as well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not satisfied with lying, now you're stalking me? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I've had FT watchlisted since january of last year, KC. Are we adding stalking to my rather long list of crimes now? Sigh. You might want to revisit WP:CIVIL; your comments to FT2 and now myself aren't showing you at your best, most civil nature. Out of curiosity, what part of my post above was a lie? Did you not tell FT what I n oted in quotes and then act surprised and defensive when he responded in kind? Passive-aggressive behavior is not an endearing quality. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


KC - dispute resolution is there for concerned users. Being "in a concern" is exactly the right time for a user to seek wider communal eyeballs. Given an evidenced dispute resolution request, you state it "may indeed be 100% true" – adding you don't care if it is or not in this case. Then you willfully trash it [5].

You post of this dispute resolution request that it "literally does not matter" to you whether a complainant seeking communal views has a valid concern or not, because of "who they are", and post insultingly at my talk page.

You and Jehochman both posted to disrupt disparage or sideline an evidenced dispute resolution request, and unanswered concern of various users, being passed to the wider community. You both state afterwards that the facts could well be 100% correct. As administrators following and respecting communal norms, can you more clearly explain your actions. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You emailed me, and since then I have been trying, repeatedly, to explain to you why your opening this Rfc is seen by many as a bad idea. I have come to the conclusion you are not interested in understanding our thoughts, as you are not asking clarifying questions, but are responding defensively and argumentatively. As you don't understand what I'm saying - no blame attached whatsoever, I am sure if I were better at explaining this would not have been such a problem - then your arguments, hinging upon a misunderstanding as they do, are non sequitars. In short, if you really want to know why this was viewed as a bad idea, and not argue why it was a good idea (we already know your view on that!( let me know. Otherwise, I am now done. I am sorry I was such a poor hand at explaining myself that you have been left with such a false impression; however, I feel had you attempted more to comprehend my meaning, we could have accomplished that. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, an unexpected handling of a matter is a good thing to clarify, but so far you haven't done so. I appreciate you wish now to back out, but I hope you will understand if the stances you have given, in your own words, are greatly disappointing ones, and I cannot find in them any reflection of the usual norms of Wikipedia adminship.
We do not dismiss and disparage dispute resolution attempts because there have been past issues between the parties [6]. We do not visit talk pages to use words like "stalking" "lying" "political" [latter:Jehochman] as epithets [7][8]. We do not write as you did that "it literally does not matter in this instance [that a conduct concern may be 100% accurate] because of who you are" to a user seeking to resolve something through dispute resolution [9].
I accept you do not wish to discuss the post. Will you accept in turn I feel you have done the project a grave disservice and betrayed the standards expected of you, in doing so on this occasion, and that I cannot see any good rationale in the idea that some users with concerns may, and others may not, look for community input in dispute resolution?
With that thought, and noting my disappointment, I agree in closing this thread. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? You have referenced me saying or feeling or wanting something several times in your post, and describe behavior which I presume is supposedly mine, and I wonder if we're even on the same planet, let alone discussing the same situation. As regards the stalking, I was speaking to Arcayne. As regards "dismiss and disparage dr attempts" are you speaking of my view on the Rfc, or my words here? s regards "do not wish to discuss the post" - which post are you talking about? As regards who has done the project a grave disservice, well, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm failing to see where I have done anything of the sort. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added diffs of your and Jehochman's posts to ease any confusion. Your comments on this occasion and their lack of any basis in any communal norm are, as explained, a grave disservice to the project, and a disappointment. We appear to be in a position of mutual incomprehension on their reasonableness. The difference is, I can point to good-faith fair compliance with well established and non-contentious norms and policies, genuine reasoned attempts to resolve the matter, and seeking of external uninvolved views on the evidence in the communally mandated way.
Sadly you do not express interest in fostering that mandatory approach to resolving evidenced concerns. As an admin, you decided to allow prior perceptions to trump any interest in evidence in a formal dispute resolution process. If that's appropriate, I cannot find any policy or guideline to hint at it, and this discussion is proving unable to bridge the gap. On that note, I have agreed in closing this thread. Unless you would wish to belatedly show there were good policy/norm-based causes, it will be pointless to re-open it. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't want to bring it up, but there's an excellent case to be made that you violated WP:HARASS and / or WP:POINT. I had hoped I could handle it with a little humor, but you have forced me to this point. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, KC. Filing an RFC is not "harrassing", and if you want to show a track record of it, you'll need more than "filed an RFC to do so". If you have evidence of a track record of cases I sought out Bishonen to engage with her when she wished to avoid it, then present it at ANI, or to me privately, or here. I think you'll be looking a long time. Requesting neutral views on an evidenced concern is not "disruption to make a point" either, I'm afraid. I'm not going to encourage you further in poorly founded allegations, and therefore repeat, if you wish to show good policy/norm-based causes for your actions, then do so. Otherwise this thread is yet again, as you and I both feel best, closed. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion

Hi FT, I've seen you ask a few times for help with writing; you said you'd welcome feedback because you're trying to improve the way you write, so I hope you don't mind this observation.

The main problem is that you use too many unnecessary words, and I speak as someone who's always having to fight the same tendency, so I know what it feels like. If you look at your recent additions to Wikipedia:Administrators, you've significantly lengthened it, and you're doing the same to several other policy/process pages, when what's needed is the opposite: we need to cut back some of that text.

The key to good writing is that every word and every sentence should be necessary. It is very difficult to do this, but that's the aim. For example, if you read the admins nutshell, [10] you changed a sentence that read admins are expected to observe a "high standard of conduct" to "high standard of conduct and judgment." What does adding "judgment" achieve? We have no idea what anyone's judgment is except through their conduct, because we're not mind-readers. Not allowed to use the tools to "gain advantage" in content disputes, you change to "gain undue advantage," which adds nothing, because we're not allowed to gain any advantage with the tools in content disputes. And so on. These are just a couple of examples of tiny additions, but sometimes the changes involve paragraphs.

My suggestion is, after you've written something, read it and ask yourself of every word: "What does this word do exactly? Do I need to say that? Is it really meaningful? Is it repetitive?" It's tedious to have to do this at first, but you'll find it will quickly improve the writing so long as you're tough on yourself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks like good advice to me - and to illustrate, from my perspective the above post could be summed up as 'be concise, it's clearer' ;-) (my hard learned writing-for-the-wiki tip btw is to avoid exclamation marks where possible!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)ps. you may have noticed that I'm interested in chatting a little bit about the whole socking thing, and have left JvdB a note, I understand you feel unable to comment, and this warrants no response, but I thought I'd let you know.....[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&oldid=310108709"