User talk:FT2/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archiving covers May 2005 onwards. Previous archiving is not kept, and can be found on the talk page history

1 Archived May 24 2006
2 Archived June 15 2006
3 Archived December 17 2006
4 Archived January 15 2007
5 Archived July 05 2007 (to June 2007)
6 Archived December 17 2007 (to Nov. 20 2007)
7 Archived April 18 2008
8 Archived April 24 2008 (re April 2008)

[edit] Archived May 24 2006

[edit] link (personal note re zoophilia and also banned user ciz)

[1] removale of academicallly supported info agreed in consensus, and replacement with POV comment. Apparently linking Z to P is OK but Z to H isnt. [2] removal of above by 3rd party

Another link: 1

[edit] Neuro-linguistic Programming

Hi, would like to contribute to your NLP project. I am very new to Wikipedia so am not fully conversant with all tools etc, but would be happy to begin writing up some articles. I am a Master Practitioner with nearly 500 hours training and in 2006 will be starting a postgraduate diploma in NLP Psychotherapy, which is going to be be accredited by UKCP (UK main umbrella body for counsellors and psychotherapists). Am especially interested in modelling, but most other areas too. Mashenka 13:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I largely agree with your assessment of the current state of the article. I am thinking it needs a complete rewrite. I am happy to work in with you on this. regards, --Comaze 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

A simple model is, gather the various views, bullet them, and when everyone feels their views are on the list, design a paragraph that fairly represents them.

[edit] Please discuss large changes to policies before making them

I've reverted your additon of a section to WP:NPOV, as it seemed like too large a section to be added without any discussion. Please explain why you feel the need to add it on Wikipedia_talk:Neutral Point Of View. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An idea (Cultural and Historical Jesus)

I have a proposition for you: make sure that the article Historical Jesus is consistent with all the work you have been doing on the Cultural and Historical Background article. Also, I share your enthusiasm for Sanders, but you should check out Paula Fredricksen's boo (or books?), Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No rest for the weary, huh? At least you are well-prepared! (and, if you do find anything by Fredriksen, let me know what you think of her stuff), Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question and reference (Cultural and Historical Jesus)

What is the title of the chapter by Orlinsky?

Also, if you really want to know the recent scholarship on Jewish history, read Hayim Ben-Sasson's edited volume, A History of the Jewish People. It is far from cutting edge (came out in 1985), but this is at least 20 years later than Allen's series. And the amount of research done in the 1960s and 1970s, and the increase in the sophistication of research, was monumental. Allan is a legit source, but Ben Sasson is much, much, much better. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trance-formations quote (page numbers)

Under fair use, you need to provide a page number for a direct quote. best regards, --Comaze 01:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I beat you to it :) ... p.164 :) --Comaze 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll support and contribute to a NLP cleanup project to bring them all the NLP related pages up to high standard. I'm sure GregA would be also. The 'As If' contribution is a good example. --Comaze 02:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

FT2, I checked a whole bunch of references and added page numbers so that other people could check what I wrote. I figure these page numbers can be removed at a later date when things settle down. I cannot believe that HeadleyDown just reverted your contributions like that, there must be some rule against it. I urged you to include my contributions, such as the additions of page numbers and where I've attempted to replace it with what "IT" is actually referring to help reduce ambiguity. If you think it is not appropriate to do so, please contact me. --Comaze 05:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Empty category

Should Category:NLP people be deleted, now that it is empty? I can do that for you if you like, and if there is consensus for it. --HappyCamper 15:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Done :-) Let me know if you have any other houscleaning tasks I can help you with. See you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 15:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of POV-pusher & libeler conspiracy

This notification is being sent to FT2, Iantresman, Harald88, and Wetman, as these 4 people have responded in support of my proposition to include the wikipedia policy 'POV selective fact suppression'.

I made a note on the page wikipedia_talk:Neutral point of view that both the users Saxifrage and Dominick stalked me to said page, and that Dominick only started stalking me because Todfox notified him that I called him on his POV-pushing behavior on my user page. On my user page (user:NPOVenforcer), I have listed many people that have either pushed a POV and/or have used libel instead of fair argument, so as to warn innocent wikipedians of who to look out for. Saxifrage and Dominick both saw the list of trouble users, which included themselves as well as Todfox (aka 'Kit') due to their past offenses. Saxifrage and Dominick are thus conspiring to trying to suppress the POV selective fact suppression policy so as to give themselves free reign to make as many selective fact suppressions as they want. Also, Todfox is conspiring with Dominick to libel my informative list as an 'enemy list' via their RFC on my user page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NPOVenforcer (libel violates the wikipedia civilty policy, by the way), so as to try to get rid of the informative list and give them free reign to violate as many wikipedia policies as they want. On said libelous RFC, Dominick actually committed the criminal offense of trying to frame me of threatening his person, so as to try to put me in prison under false pretenses. I hope you find such behavior apalling as I do. It is for that reason that I am creating an RFA against Dominick to permanently ban his IP for his criminal offense against me. I hope that you come to support it. Why should you help save me from Dominick's offenses? -Because I am fighting to support the NPOV nature of wikipedia articles, so what benefits me benefits you through my actions, because you also support the NPOV policy. Besides, Dominick may victimize one of you next. Have you heard the saying "We will all hang together or we will all hang separately"? NPOVenforcer 05:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, whether or not NPOVenforcer's "bad editors list" hurt anyone it violated the policies on Civility and personal attacks. I think that is what got him blocked along with a name that made him look like he held an official position (Wikipedia:Username has been changed as a result of his banning to include NPOV as a prohbited username element). Kit 21:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Cases

I saw that you also filed an arbitration case. Good luck with that. It looks like our cases are very similar. Part of the problem is proving the exsistance of sockpuppets. It's really hard, which is of course frustrating. Most people play by the rules, but when it comes to proving that some don't, the bar is set pretty high in terms of trying to show what's happening. In our case, we are also having problems with one person posting POV statements. Anyway, as I said good luck. Davidpdx 10:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2, would you mind if I whittled down the request for arbitration? There is a discussion going on the talk page about RFA's being too long and I thought that perhaps I could slim the request down to make it easier for arbitrators to read. Or you could do it. whichever. The request for arbitration is just a request, so all the details can be given once the case is actually accepted. Basically, the points I see that need mention is POV pushing, failed mediation, possible sock-puppetry, and a vote to request arbitration. That could be summarized at the top of the request. Then you could put your own personal statement in your area as you see fit. Anyway, just a thought. FuelWagon 19:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the new summary, much more on point. The only suggestion I see is to have the word "invitation" be a link to the yahoo newsgroup post containing the actual invitation. Otherwise, I say go for it. FuelWagon 19:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've inserted your proposed summary. And I've shortened the section that explains that other attempts at dispute resolution have been tried. Feel free to revert if I've overstepped my bounds. FuelWagon 23:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop. Fred Bauder 02:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks For Your Question (ArbCom candidate User:Karmafist)

Ultimately, I don't expect or want to win, my candidacy is more or less a protest of current arbcom "impotence" for lack of a better word. Users like Jason are newbies and don't understand that sockpuppets are not acceptable under any situation, and having them there is just a temptation to use them.

He's a contreversial figure off Wikipedia, so it makes sense that he should fear harrassment, but it bothers me that he feels like he has to accept it. Situations like that are what the arbcom should be for, letting him know that breaking policy since policy doesn't seem to work is not the way to go since there are people out there who will help him if he is harrassed while following the rules. I am one of those people, and I hope after the election the arbcom will be too. Karmafist 20:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presentation of evidence in ArbCom cases

I would, personally, prefer to see the evidence presented in a explicative narrative in a logical order that allows the ArbCom to easily understand what has happened. This generally means that chronological is the best presentation; however, there are times (especially when there are multiple, overlapping episodes of questioned conduct) that not strictly following chronological order is useful.

I appreciate a clear, concise narrative presenting all the relevant evidence in context so that I can read it and understand what has transpired. Unfortunately, it is extremely rare to see this in an evidentiary statement on Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for yur help in the article about Gral. Shahnawaz Tanai. I really appreciate it, since in order to achieve a good article, language is also an important factor on it. Cheers ! Messhermit 21:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV Suppression draft policy

Hi what now? I think the text is quite OK like that, and there were no reactions, but where are you? can I just copy it somewhere to the article? Where? Cheers, Harald88 20:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

hi i replied on my page Harald88 09:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary, September 11, 2001 attacks

In an edit summary on September 11, 2001 attacks I wrote "'terrorist' is entirely correct; to call them anything else is to promote a point of view." I want to make clear that I did not mean to suggest that you were trying to promote a point of view, but that the the choice of militant in that context had that effect. Certainly it's a difficult enough subject as it is without adding hostile edit summaries; I hope I did not seem to do that. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theory disagreement

Hello FT2, if you have a spare moment your assistance would be most welcome to help us resolve this dispute. zen master T 22:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] how (and why) do you hide your own text?

To my surprise, your comment:

^lt;!--

The other problem is that editors on talk:NPOV have a consensus that the current "common sense" policy in practice doesn't cover the situation of POV suppression well enough. It can be dealt with when a problem escalates high enough, because WP:NPOV implies not to do certain things, but you want to make it easier to call time on POV suppression earlier on, at article level, where the problem emerges. The reason is that WP:NPOV concentrates on what it means to be neutral, but for this you need to focus on a list of the major ways that views are suppressed or minimized instead. So at present, it is not well clarified and defined in one section on one page, what POV suppression covers. It just works better as a short self-contained policy than a sizable section within a long policy.

Observation after the above. The draft proposal states, very carefully:

"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability."

The aim of NPOV is to ensure that views, and the subject, are presented neutrally and fairly. If the evidence, and credibility of proponents and critics, of "round earth" and "flat earth" respectively are considered as a whole by editors, I have little doubt that we would find a "balanced manner" would give flat earth a low level of prominence, and would clearly state the arguments against it by scientists and others if necessary.

What this is saying is, if someone raises "flat earth" on the talk page, saying "why isn't this given more prominence", it must be fairly considered. We can argue it is a tiny-minority view and low credibility, we can end up giving it one sentence or no space at all perhaps in the article. What they (and we) can't do is:

Neither "side", whether in the talk page debate or in the actual article wording (if any) should use the kind of tricks named in the policy proposal, to artificially manipulate the sources.
Neither "side" should use the kinds of techniques described to add false "support" for their view, or misrepresent views and criticisms, in a non-neutral manner.

That said, if we do describe "flat earth" in the end, we do so to its best ability, as its proponents would ("writing for the enemy"). We (and they) don't use information suppression techniques to untruthfully represent any of the views, sources or criticisms presented. If the concept is false, we don't need to manipulate sources to prove a point. FT2 21:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

-->

does not show up on the page. What's happening? Harald88 12:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Because sometimes less is more. Just because a nice wording comes to mind doesn't mean it needs to be said at that time.

OK, then you want people who comment to your comments know your thoughts but not people who don't want to coment on your comments?! Anyway, please tell me where you found that trick, so I can learn more about such wikipedia codes. Harald88 16:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

same way you did. I saw someone else do it. FT2 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edited talk pages

I don't understand why you deleted my comments from the 9/11 talk page. The guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) state "As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission." Please explain ~Sylvain 12/12/05

Can you send me a DIFF of this -- I dont make a habit of editing others comments, although at times I've fixed formatting if obviously problematic. Let me know a diff and I'll take a look. FT2 17:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No prob: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=30875393&oldid=30875378

Re deletion of your comment here Dec 11 2005: I think I see what has happened. I was in the middle of a series of 5 edits, and instead of editing off the previous version there's been an edit clash and a comment got deleted. Maybe I edited an older version or something that didn't contain that comment, or didn't notice when i patsed the text that your comment had been added to the page. I'm not sure. There were edits at 00:20, 00:21, 00:22 (yours) and 3 edits at 00:23. I'm pretty sure the deletion wasn't deliberate, but I accept responsibility for it. It was not my intention, if you wish to reinstate it, and I apologize. I hope this puts it right.

Copyposted to User talk:Sylvain1972 for the public record. FT2 19:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for taking the time to look into it.~Sylvain

[edit] Words to avoid

It's possible that I have not clearly understood what you meant to do with your recent edit of Words to avoid, or maybe you did more than you intended. Anyway, the result was to revert back over several versions where some of us seemed to be making progress. If I understand your edit summary, "A list of "arguments for/against" is not a platform for advocacy, which these edits clearly are", you seem to be suggesting, well what exactly? That only suitable arguments should be included? That other editors are using the article as a platform for advocacy? Perhaps this is intentional irony; If so, I guess I miss the point. It might be useful if you would undo this edit yourself; Then maybe tomorrow we can all continue working at a reasonable pace. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 04:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand your explanation. Neutrality of viewpoint is not something a wise senior editor imposes on others who are well-meaning but inept, which seems to be the thrust of your recent edit.

Neutrality of viewpoint is something we are all committed to. Urging others to go read WP:NPOV, and presumably meditate upon their shortcomings, is not useful. Neutrality of viewpoint emerges when reasonable men who disagree edit, compromise, and work to consensus. Peter and I were making progress before you felt the need to revert the page several versions back. Whether or not the edits you reverted were redundant (some of them were) or inaccurate are points that would have sorted themselves out in the normal course of editing, if the editing had been allowed to take its course.

You seem to be suggesting that I've used the page as a platform for advocacy. Your explanation, like your edit summary, resorts to words like "argumentative," "advocative," and "POV pushing." This is not the language of one who presumes good faith, and it's not language an experienced editor would use to encourage compromise.

Since the beginning of December the article has changed pretty dramatically, largely as a result of your work. This change has not been universally welcome, with some editors expressing concerns on the talk page. Please reconsider your methods. The 'my way or revert' approach to editing is counterproductive. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I am glad to know I mistook your comments. I understand you were remarking on the result of the edits, and not the intent of the editor.

POV is like sin; everyone is against it. You are wrong to think you can appeal to WP:NPOV as a written standard. We all read it, agree with it, and understand it to mean different things. Otherwise there would be the broad general consensus you hope for, that terrorist may only be used with attribution. I and others read WP:NPOV and understand no such prohibition.

We know something is neutral when a consensus agrees it is; when Jimbo anoints his vicar on Earth, that chosen one can tell us whether an article is neutral or not. Until then, barring personal divine intervention, there is nobody here but us equals.

Further discussion is probably specific to WP:WTA, so we can continue there. Best regards, Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Libel?

I thought that, coming from your perspective, that you would prefer the inlined and numerous links I provided which showed that almost all the mainstream press in the English speaking world refers to the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists, instead of the possibly POV rendition sponsored by the U.S. Government. Personally, I would be less inclined to agree with the federal opinion and more likly to adhere to one from numerous sources outside the government. As far as libel? How so? You went into the article Words to avoid, made the changes that suited you and then filtered back in to articles with that "ace" up the sleeve. I can find the diffs if you want...do you really want me to?--MONGO 05:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. But bear in mind that the subject matter was in WTA already. So what you need to do is:

Get round the fact that my work on WP:WTA was cleanup, and the view on terrorism was there already before that. You've had the citation for that.
Get round the fact you've said that I add things to WTA "in order to quote WTA elsewhere".

So, sure. Some diffs please. Not just ones showing I've cleaned up WTA and what I said elsewhere matches what's in WTA, because all that says is I'm consistent in abiding by best practice. You need to find diffs showing I added new things (that weren't there before), and then gone to other articles and said "Look, its in WTA so it must be right".

Since I know darn well there isn't a single time I've said anywhere "Look at WTA", Mongo... and since WTA already said that terrorism is often a POV term... thats called libel and personal attack. Its also a sign that you are not neutral as regard use of language. Thats the problem we have.

PS -- I seriously doubt you'll get this. I am anticipating a diff showing that I've added something about terrorism to WTA, completely ignoring that it was there beforehand, and then showing I said the same thing in other articles, completely ignoring the fact several editors have also told you it's a POV term they way you want to use it. So here's the thing Mongo... you've said, "I also enjoy how the two of you work on the Words to Avoid page and fill it with your POV and then go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point". Since that's something I haven't done, that's called libel, and that's not a good thing for anyone to do. Don't do it.

FT2 09:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I will be glad to show the differences. perhaps you believe it is necessary for me to show it in the exact same roundabout manner in which I labelled it. Regardless my friend, if you are threateneing me with a legal action...best think again about that accusation.--MONGO 09:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Mongo... first you really need to read carefully. Thats several times you've read things that aren't there. Which is why you got into this mess of claiming things that aren't the case in the first case. Read Wikipedia:No legal threats, then read my words carefully until you finally understand the difference between an observation of libel and a legal threat.

And yes, how you claimed it is what you need to show. ie, that you represented whats so, not "Oh, I *actually* meant something completely different". Thats why your edits get reverted... because you read one thing, make assumptions, and edit another thing entirely. We've just seen it in your comment about legal threats. FT2 10:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If there is a mess, it's of your own making. Diff's to support your POV: commencement of rewording at WTA here [3] more huge alterations here [4] and finishing up with these POV edits [5] you then cited WTA here [6], made a change here [7] and then, mysteriously erased it [8]. Did you think I couldn't read a person's edit history? To be honest, the format changes you imposed on WTA are so massive that it is almost impossible to see what substantive arguments you added. But I can tell you what you subtracted...every piece of argument that you didn't agree with, mine just to mention a few. You don't own that page and it's not a guideline or policy page anyway. It has never been brought before peer review and in fact, doesn't really seem to serve much purpose anyway. I am also well aware that the terrorist section was already there, but your alterations in tone and substance and elimination of other editors attempts to do the same shows an attempt at ownership. You made these drastic changes to a long standing page before you engaged in talk and there was a complaint about this. I provided plenty of citations that were placed immediately after the term terrorist was used in the article in question(9/11)...and that fits the Wikipedia:Manual of Style...or are you going to edit that too now?--MONGO 10:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Very good... but you still need to learn to slow down and read, not jump impulsively. Let's look at these one at a time.

The rewrite of WTA doesn't change that "X is a terrorist" was already identified as a POV term in the previous version before I edited it for clarity: "However, that agreement only extends insofar as the article makes it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the narrative voice of the article where the terrorist identification is disputed."
The "POV edits" you say I "ended up with" don't actually contain any POV. What they do contain is an edit of two statements added by Peter McConaughey, 1/ one of which states that if they call themselves terrorists it's probably fair for us to (kept), 2/ the other is an unsourced statement that "Certain acts in history are also indisputably referred to as acts of terrorism." (I am not aware of any acts in history that are indisputably referred to as terrorism, nor am I aware of any recent "terrorist attack" or "terrorist organisation" which is indisputably described as terrorist by everyone, but even if they did, it is still consensus that its a pejorative term, and Wikipedia tries to avoid pejoratives). (deleted as unsourced and almost certainly incorrect). Please read WP:NPOV again, until you understand what "X says Y" means.
The "use" of WP:WTA you cite is actually not a "use" at all, it's a Request for Comment on "terrorism"! Its wording is, to be precise: "RFC - Is terrorist a dictionary term, so that Wikipedia can say in its own voice "Y is a terrorist", or is it an opinion of Y by X and should only be described as "X says Y is a terrorist". View that its an opinion here [CITATION], edits making the case it's a dictionary definition here [CITATION]".
I'm still waiting for a single example of what you libellously wrote, namely that I "go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point". See, that's called making stuff up, Mongo, and thats a bad thing.
My request to RFC on terrorism, is not that surprising. We have an article disagreement. Seeking comment is the recommended way to gain new input on the disagreement. Like, this is a bad thing... why exactly? I removed it myself minutes later because I figured we may be able to solve this ourselves in the article. I'll relist it on RFC if it turns out we can't.
As regards WP:WTA, I'm reasonably experienced at page cleanup. I've also reworked WP:ABOUT if you didn't notice. Both of these pages were edited. For example, WP:ABOUT was reverted to the version I worked on, by many subsequent editors including Texture, Ahoerstemeier, Sam Korn, Everyking, Wayward, etc.

In the meantime I am still waiting to see the slightest evidence of misuse. I doubt there is any, but we'll wait and see... FT2 11:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You made alterations to a long standing page, then when challenged by other editors, you either reverted them outright or changed the tone and argument. Then you reported it as if you had the concensus and others were somehow wrong in challenging your arguments. I wouldn't label it misuse. Again, the WTA article is just that, an article...it is not a guideline or policy page. If you are going to relist, creat a separate Rfc for the issue and list it accordingly, but not on the policy list since it isn't a policy, but instead a content dispute.--MONGO 12:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But you know what? You still, under all the accusations, have not shown a single instance of what you allege, namely that I "go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point".
You aren't going to either, and that's what "libel" means. And that means you told a lie, which is a bad thing to do.

If, in addition to untrue accusations, you have a doubt as to editorial content on an article, then I suggest your place to address that is either the article, or RFC. But since the old article says virtually the same on terrorism, I doubt you'll have much different response than you're getting here and now.

So... you made an accusation. It was very specific, that I "go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point".

Prove it. With diffs. Of "articles" (plural). Where I have said that to other editors. You said I do this. Show some instances of it. Thank you. FT2 13:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No lies were told. You completely revamped the WTA page and then began a formal complaint as if the concensus was behind you and then reversed your decision...a wise choice. You are quoting me, and I did not quote you with that statement. So sue me if you are too obstinate or obtuse to understand the hypocrisy of affecting the tone and sustenance of an article without concensus to do so and then try and complain when your radical changes are challenged. It is clearly marked [9] and that is where you called out a complaint that this reference point was challenged, after you did major reorganization and tonal alterations to the page. Also, can you please use edit summaries when editing articles...it's not that big a deal on talk pages.--MONGO 14:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, it's getting tedious asking for a single diff of what you state I do. Is it that hard to get? Mongo says I "go to articles" and do X. I ask for a few diffs to show me doing this on articles. I ask this 5 times so far and you know what? It's clear it wasn't true. That means you said something, knowing it was untrue. If you feel otherwise, then I'm still waiting. My above words still stand:

"You made an accusation. It was very specific, that I "go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point". Prove it. With diffs. Of "articles" (plural). Where I have said that to other editors. You said I do this. Show some instances of it."

5 requests so far and all you can show is that I posted a Request for Comment giving both sides and later removed it. Not one case of article use as described, and RFC is appropriate for an article dispute anyhow. See, this is what makes me feel you are a POV editor.

You make a very specific claim. If you can factually support, diffs (plural), where I "go into articles and say, gee, look here, you are going against this reference point", do so. I doubt you can, and this is the 6th time of asking. FT2 15:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

POV editor...um..I can accept that. FT2...I think you only see things from your POV. I provided the diffs. All I can state is what I have already stated...maybe reread my post? You know, I think our argument is just beginning....--MONGO 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, logically one of 2 things. You said I do something. I ask 6 times and you dont show evidence of it. You also misread basics like taking a reference to a libellous statement as a legal matter, and talk about RFC as making a "complaint" when it's clear the post solicited views both ways. What exactly do you think people, including myself, will assume that means? I take it that this reply means you don't want or plan to justify your original libellous statement with a diff showing "articles" I have said "gee, look here, you are going against this reference point" as you claim? FT2 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neuro-linguistic programming evidence

On 11/28, you said you would present evidence "within a few days". However, it has been almost a month now, and you still have not presented your evidence. Can you explain that? Fred Bauder has commented, "It is time to come up with something." --TML1988 02:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DrBat evidence

zoophilia - because he has claimed and stated "Zoophilia is like pedophilia, and a POV term bestiality - because he claims bestiality is an accurate term which he is merely correcting. animal sexuality - because he has views whether animals have this or that sexual outlook, which contradicts certain other authorities evidence and is basically a personal opinion, and he has edited this into other articles or may do so. human-animal relationships - because the south park edit was not so much a del;etion of an article on bestiality or zoophilia, but merely a deletion of a section discussing the presence of human-animal relationships as a theme

[edit] Article corrections

Hello there! I was wondering if you could help me with another article that needs a little bit of grammatic and vocabulary corrections: Hafizullah Amin. Currently, I'm gonna try to push for it's inclusion in the main page, since it was an important political figure of Afghanistan before the soviet invasion. Thanks for the help! Messhermit 20:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be fanatical

Don't be fanatical to such a degree where one loses sight of the basic principles of Wikipedia. Respect common standards, and recognize that all Wikipedia editors are ultimately colleagues working together.

[edit] Death Penalty

Hi - you raise a good question and gnerally I agree with you. But aside from being precise, we ought to provide accurate citations for verifiable sources. Unfortunately, I do not know where in the Talmud one would find this discussion. I would suggest you look at Arthur Cohen's book Everyman's Talmud -- and I am sorry to say I may be mistaken about the author's name or the title of the book -- but look at it and see if he as any discussion of the death penalty. If he does, and I think he should, he would provide the specific Talmudic sources and of course you could cite his book, quote him and add it to the references. I do not know of any other published articles or books that trace the Jewish attitude towards the death penalty, althouh they may be out there. Kurutowski's Gohst (and I am certin I am getting his username wrong) may know. Of course, you know, the Rabbis who developed this stringent set of rules concerning the death penalty actully did not have any power to execute anyone (i.e., when Jews did have the power to execute, during the monarchies, it may have been a common and accepted practice. I only mean to say that when describing a people's values, we need to discuss not only what they say, but what they actually have done, too. At the same time, of course, the fact that the Talmud is more recent than the Hasmonean or Davidic Kingdom's is of course relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] possible request for comment?

I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [10] Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP Article Arbitration

I would be grateful if you can tell me whether there is currently an arbitration on the NLP article and what is the current progress of the arbitration? Thanks --Dejakitty 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for your input

I saw that you support the wikipedia policy against information suppression. Currently there is a VfD and RfC on an article of a scientific researcher that has made large and verifiable contributions to science and society, at Edward Smith (psychologist). I have verified the findings myself via observation and experimentation, so the findings are clearly real. However, Edward Smith has not been published in any major scientific journal, it is uncertain if he has gone through the official educational system, and even his identity is uncertain. Some people believe that any such subtle-but-important people that lack those social prerequisites can not make major contributions to society, and especially scientific advancement, and that any of their contributions are non-verifiable, period, despite methods of verification being outlined by the discoverer. I am curious what your stance on this matter is. IrreversibleKnowledge 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new policy or help tool for policy?

Hi FT2, why do you keep labeling the proposed examples of POV as "policy"? IMO, that can only cause confusion (as already happened), leading to less favorable comments. Harald88 07:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I see not much is happening with "POV fact suppression"; what do you think of instead adding the examples to the NPOV tutorial? If I had known at the time of that tutorial, I'd then have proposed to include it there (with a specific link from the NPOV page). Harald88 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV? User:Radiant!

If you wish to make a true policy proposal, it is your responsibility to follow proper process and advertise properly. You have done neither. It was pointed out several times that this is really an amendment to NPOV, hence the move makes sense. As a stand-alone proposal, it should be obvious from the talk page that there is no support for this, and you have failed to address (or even respond to) most of the concerns given. Hence, the proper tag for this is "rejected". Continuing to propose something in spite of community opposition is not helpful, and neither is wikilawyering the issue. >Radiant< 11:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are working under the common fallacy that policy is decided by voting. Please read voting is evil. You should not look at the vote but at the community comments, most of which you've seen fit to ignore. Six out of eleven qualifies as "no support" for an official policy proposal, which you would have known if you had read up on precedents. And Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Information_suppression clearly shows that the proposal isn't linked from the usual spots where such would be advertised, hence your accusation that I didn't check for that holds no water, and in fact this implies that you yourself haven't checked properly. You are wikilawyering because you're arguing your case from process (and by accusing your opponents of lack of process), rather than discussing the merits of the proposal. Bureaucracy doesn't cut it here; time to move on. >Radiant< 16:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to be a pedant, at least do it properly. Read "how to create policy" again. Note how it says, boldfaced right at the top, Policy is not created by voting on it. Which part of that sentence don't you understand? Note also that one of the foremost supporters is a permabanned vexlit. That doesn't speak well for it. The WP:CS entry got removed because it was over one month old. During that month, you found five others interested in the proposal. The community doesn't care for this. At all. >Radiant< 16:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming case. Raul654 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There's no escaping your misdeeds (HeadleyDown: vandal's personal attack)

FT2. I'm still here, as you were unsuccessful in getting me banned after you were completely unable to handle mediation. Your list of biased niggles towards other editors is about as un-neutral as your editing on the NLP article. I have pointed out to the arbitrators that your name was not on the list of those being warned, and that it should be added.

Considering your NLP promotional campaign (NLP wikiproject), and your extreme selective editing on the NLP wikipedia article, it would be incredibly unjust for you not to be reminded to restrain your NLP obsession, and to admit to your clear vested interests in promoting NLP.

Just to remind you of some of your misdeeds.

You DID repeatedly paste your own POV (YOUR view that there is a discrepancy that NLP has been proven ineffective by scientists, yet is used in cults (As we all know, urine is imbibed in some cults also for the sake of applying psychological pressure, but it has no effect in itself).

You DID also repeatedly place extremely selective editing into the opening of the NLP article that left the rather damning conclusion off of the paragraph that you pasted in verbatim.

Considering this and other rather glaring evidence of your extreme bias in editing in favour of your own POV and your own vested interests, I suggest that you start to realise your own self-hyped credibility has suffered a great deal of damage.

JPLogan 06:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Current surveys

FYI, I reverted your last edit on Wikipedia:Current surveys because there were a whole bunch of changes deleted by it (by mistake I presume). I'd guess you used the wrong base version. Whatever changes you did intend will need to be added if you still think they're needed. -R. S. Shaw 03:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish views of Jesus

I noticed you were involed with the page "Jewish views of Jesus". I have made major changes to the article and would appresiate your input. Jon513 12:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 38% for major edits and 71% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 22:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thank you. I don't mind this reminder at all.

Some statistics like how many have summaries, compared to the average, would be interesting and motivating maybe! FT2 (Talk) 22:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand. "How many" means how many of your edits, or how many other users have edit summaries? Thanks, and you can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request that will help Wikipedia. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to quickly understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email.

"For your interest, you used edit summaries on 38% of your last 150 major article edits and 71% of your last 150 minor article edits. The average for all article edits in the last 3 days is 52% and 61% respectively.

"This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so on my feedback page. You can also add the template {{NoMathbotMessages}} to your talk page if you don't wish such information in future. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 22:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)" (as modified by FT2)

Thanks, but I think it would be too much statistics to include the average for all article edits in the last three days, as then sme people may think the bot bugs people too much. :) By the way, there is no need to put {{NoMathbotMessages}} on your talk page, as the bot is designed to not write to anybody more than once, so that people don't get mad. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed policy disagreement?

Hi I just now came back from vacation, and slowly I'll have a little time - I saw your message of some 10 days ago, please fill me in about it (was it about your proposal?). You can send me an email. Thanks, Harald88 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Camonica2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Camonica2.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.

Perhaps {{PD-Art}} is the right tag?

Regards, Dethomas 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drauper freak wave.png)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Drauper freak wave.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trusted Computing synopsis

Most of what you took out of "synopsis" is really not repeated under "key concepts", and really needs to be in the article. I don't care about the concepts being slightly lower, but much of that material really is necessary. Would you work on reincorporating it? 19:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Request

Sure. Just use the email link from my talk page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The link says "Email this user". Everyone has it. Depending on the skin you use, it's on the left hand side of your screen or up near the top or the bottom. If you are using Internet Explorer, go to my user page, go to the Edit menu and then go to "Find" and just type in "Email" and then find. You'll find it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, if you set an email address for yourself, I can email you and we can do it that way. I am just not comfy with putting my address up. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 Team

Hi, FT2, welcome to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. One way you could help is by working on the core topics. We have a [list] of those most in need of attention]]. Maurreen 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned users

Banned users aren't allowed to post anywhere on the website, FT2, not in articles, article talk pages, or in user space. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Just so you didn't miss my reply: [11] Raul654 05:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived June 15 2006

[edit] TfD

Since you participated in the Templates for deletion discussion apropos of Template:Legal disclaimer, I think I ought to let you know that in my hasty cutting-and-pasting, I inadvertently removed part of my nomination, such that it didn’t fully enumerate the reasons for deletion and was syntactically troublesome in any event. The nomination, which read the template is used only twice (once in mainspace), its existence but absence from nearly every page to which it could be appended surely invites one salient objection from NDT, viz., that "The lack of the disclaimer on a page might open Wikipedia to lawsuits", ought to have begun with This template is self-referential and in any event in contravention of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates; inasmuch as. I know that your reasoning will not likely be affected by my repairing my malformed nom, and I don’t write to solicit a change in your views (indeed, I wrote also to those who, notwithstanding my errors, supported deletion); I simply didn’t feel comfortable revising the nom without alerting those who had participated in the discussion. My apologies for my omission… Cordially, Joe 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSA controversy: comprehensive reorganization

I've proposed a new version for the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy article, which is a complete reorganization of the current version. I'd like to replace the current version with the new version (applying all changes that have been made to the current version to the new version, to bring it up to date, ofcourse). I'm interested to hear your views/thoughts on it here. Thanks. Kevin Baas^talk 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reconstruction of NLP series

[edit] Reconstruction: principles

I've started on the reconstruction the fundamentals/principles section diffs. I've posted what I've done so far to the reconstruction page, just so that others know what I'm working on so we don't work on the same section. I'll keep working on it. --Comaze 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Wu

I blocked her indefinitely. That post of hers might've been the most incivil I've seen since this mentorship thing started. That was horrible. Anyway. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Try not to take it personally. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLP and Science

Where do you want comments on NLP and Science? Having written that section on the NLP(temp) page long ago, I'm very interested.... but have little time. Do you want any broad comments yet? Greg 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

snippet for NLP+science

Thought this might be useful for the NLP + science article... As a result of these criticisms, Einspruch & Forman (1985) classified all 39 studies as unreliable and concluded that it was "not possible at this time to determine the validity of either NLP concepts or whether NLP-based therapeutic procedures are effective for achieving therapeutic outcomes," and that "only when well-designed empirical investigations are carried out may we be assured of NLP's validity as a model of therapy."[12] --Comaze 15:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived December 17 2006

[edit] Pornography stuff

The main zoophilia article is too long. A few substantial and relatively self-contained sections are being moved to their own articles, as discussed during FAC (eg zoosexuality and the law). That's the main reason. It's also a major self-contained porn genre, with aspects that aren't relevant to zoophilia or mainstream porn, and it's also is relevant to articles such as pornography, internet pornography and obscenity, where sex with animals as a sexuality, is not the issue, but the media and access to pornography is. The other reason is so that side issues, such as producers, history, abuse issues, and laws, can be more fully covered.

So those are the reasons why its due an article of its own. It won't be a stubbie. Theres a fair bit to cover and although I'm unfamiliar with big parts of it, thats a good aspect of a communal document.

As for title, I'd go with animal pornography, because of the Wikipedia tradition of choosing neutral terms rather than terms from any specific viewpoint. "Bestiality pornography" will give impressions and convey a viewpoint. Animal pornography is accurate, and purely descriptive. If you like, a redirect from bestiality pornography to it would be sensible, though, I would agree.

I'll post this on the relevant page when it gets closer to being ready, since it'll be relevant there. meantime, are you able to help its development? :) Thanks!!

[edit] Controversy header good idea

Hey, good idea putting a controversy header on the election "controversy" page. Zen Master 17:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FWIW

I liked your original reply on the VfD page better. :-) Baylink 19:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] THANKS!!

I did not have a chance to see what you were doing yesterday (nor have I taken a look yet today) but I was very impressed with the effort you were putting into this. Your process of collecting the consensus votes and working through the complete article, while at the same time posting to the talk page your progress to keep the antsy members of the contributing group abreast of your progress, seems to me to be a particularly appropriate form of agressive mediation; something I believe this article/dispute has been in need of.

While I cannot offer an appropriate reward, please know that your efforts have been noticed and strongly appreciated!

- Amgine 17:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to second this, reviewing the summary I constructed for the text, it seems like you spent a great deal of effort over this. CheeseDreams 22:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Zoophilia reconstruction

I am new here so please let me know if I am posting inappropriately.

I would like to comment upon the work that FT2 has done regarding the neutrality of the zoophilia article. I have come to expect Wikipedia to be a RELIABLE source of information with VERIFIABLE content. I would still like to see the appearance of references and links to peer-reviewed psychological and zoological references. However the wildly POV aspect of the original article has been well toned down and FT2 is close to a neutral discussion. Personally I find the whole subject distasteful but have had to study it from a psychoanlytic POV and therefore appreciate the efforts of FT2.

Thank you. --kaijura 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiya. Thank you. We try. The harder a topic is, the more important it is to add balance and reliability, but thats not always easy either. A lot of people added work, and much of the balance was due to others.

A historic version of the page, with research quotes (Jan 2005), can be found here. I think that'll be what you are after. It contains a lot of peer review info of the kind you might be after, which turned up when I was originally researching it myself. The research was later removed from the article due to size constrictions. FT2 04:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I would just like to point you to the discussion page on the zoophilia article regarding the religious perspectives section.

[edit] Comparing/contrasting Judaism/Christianity

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I value many of the changes you have recently made to this article. And I want to apologize for having been overzealous in reverting some of your earlier changes. I know that in one case you were — as far as my research shows — wrong about one of your edits, concerning killing in self-defense. But in reverting that I reverted other changes of yours. I am sure that as I continue to work on this article there will be times when I revert or edit other contributions you have or will have ade to the article. But please know that I will be more careful in the future, to make changes more judiciously. I think several of your recent edits have really improved the article, and I want you to know that I acknowledge that, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for "about Wikipedia".

What the headline says. I was checking the aftermath of the Ciz war for unknown and probably masochistic reasons, was glad to see that you hadn't been driven off by it and more so when I found those few well-fritten lines. I'll have to add it to my quote list... if I ever get one. --Kizor 21:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hello

Just to say that I think the work you do on here is interesting. (let me see if I remember how to sign this thing with the tildes) Saudade7 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender Differences

Loved your response at the Science Helpdesk on a thread that was moving in a troubling direction.

That is all. --Ginkgo100 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Thanks for the help on the science helpdesk and the link to Last_universal_ancestor. You rule!! Do you have a LiveJournal or website?--Sonjaaa 04:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 0.5

Hi FT2,

As you may have seen, Wikipedia 0.5 (the test release before WP:1.0) is now up & running, and accepting nominations. That is of course great news, but right now nominated articles are building up much faster than the reviewers can review them. Can you help us clear the backlog by joining the term of reviewers? We are judging whether articles should be included in this test CD version - since it is fairly small (2-500 articles?) we have to limit it to article of both quality and importance, as described here. You can probably focus on articles in your area of interest. Do you have time to help out? Thanks, Walkerma 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal pornography

Sorry for replying you that late. I guess it is a bit early to construct a separate "animal pornography" article. However, if user contribution reaches a considerable amount (which is very limited presently) at the Pornography section in the article Zoophilia, this may well be created. I think the issue is incipient by now. I also think that it should be named as "Bestiality pornography" because although it is certain that this is not an appropriate naming, it is the most used generic name. By the way, Club Seventeen is not Danish but Dutch, so I corrected this info. Best Regards. Behemoth 14:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Also, Club Seventeen is not a company but a label of the company Video Art Holland, I edited accordingly. Behemoth 14:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cultural and historical background

Please comment here [13].

Please review the recent edit history of the article. I did not think that using BCE and CE would be offensive to Christians, and the fact is the article has used these twerms for years. Moreove, I didn't think identifying the article as relevant to Jewish articles would be offensive to Christians. Ithink along with me you probably put the most work into this article. If I am right that we had achieved (after a lot of struggle) a very stable consensus, you were part of that, and should comment. I appreciate your help, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(Further posts in this section hidden behind "comment" to keep it short for reading. See source to view)

[edit] Image thumbnail test

image as PNG
identical image as GIF

[edit] Articles

I'd like to see the names or diffs of articles for Question 2 of your RfA please. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I found them on your user page, but I'm sure others would like to see them in Question 2. Good luck with the RfA -- Samir धर्म 07:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Yak and mare.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Yak and mare.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Cow and tractor.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cow and tractor.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Dog and toy.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dog and toy.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Racoon and dog.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Racoon and dog.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

Hi. Per Wikipedia:Fair use, none of these images are okay. See Policy items 1 and 10, and Counterexamples 2 and 8. I have added a link to our free, reusable media at commons:Category:Animal sex to help replace these images. Jkelly 00:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being overly liberal in interpreting Wikipedia:Fair use. I don't understand, by your reading, how anything could ever not be fair use, if the criteria is "any image, from any source, that shows something we want to discuss". I suppose that it does still rule out decoration. If you think that I'm confused about this, I suggest involving more people in the discussion. Jkelly 02:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userfied (List of users of Neuro-linguistic programming moved to user space)

I userfied List of users of Neuro-linguistic programming. It is now located at User:FT2/List of users of Neuro-linguistic programming. It just doesn't belong in the article space, but if you want to use it in your writings, go ahead. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HeadleyDown related

[edit] NLP

Honestly, I think I'm done with NLP. My problem is that once we do this editing, someone will come by and make it awful again. It's just pointless. Too many meatpuppets. Too many socks. Just too much work for this old Wikipedia soul. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional views on zoophilia (HeadleyDown: banned vandal personal attack sock

Hello FT2. I notice you have made many edits to the zoophilia article, and I noticed that you have mentioned this in your own article. With respect, I fail to see how you can be proud of the new version of the Zoophilia article It is only really bigger than the prior version, except the new version has more argument in it. I understand that some may be sympathetic towards zoophiles, but realistically, the vast majority of people will find it distasteful. This is not handled properly in the article. In short, there is too much argument for arguing zoophilia may be love for animals, and not enough simple straight statements of fact.

I'm sure you should have noticed the word "however" and similar argument appears in places in the article, and I see no reason apart from promotionality, that you choose to leave them in. There is also an absence of the kind of damage incurred to animals. In fact, the only kind of image that should appear in the article is the xray slide sort, of various injury to animals.

The images are promotional. As zoophilia involves pornography, I see no way how any such art images can be justifiably used in the article. To place classical art as an illustration will leave the article open to much rancor in future for the majority who find zoophilia abusive and distasteful. There are clearly many more negative images that could be placed in the article, so why are they not placed? Also, the Michaelangelo is a painting about classical mythology full stop. The swan is not actually a swan, but a greek god (Zeus). The swan is a representation of Zeus.

So really, the article you have worked on is far from neutrally presented. I intend to remedy this rather big and obvious set of problems. JHartley 05:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of war crimes

I have put my reply to your question into Talk:List of war crimes#Introduction as others may like to see our discussion. I do not think you and I are a million miles apart on this and can quickly come to an agreement Regards Philip Baird Shearer 11:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please ignore my comment

^{25 June 2006 22:54} Ste4k wrote: Hi FT2! I read your comment and misunderstood what NN meant. I was actually answering to the comment that someone had missed the point. Just wanted to reiterate the actual point because I was bored. :) Happy editing!

[edit] A system for Citing Sources

Wikipedia has always had a problem with your suggestion and related ideas. I'm not sure if you are aware of older suggestions such as Wikicite. For some reason, these ideas never take off at Wikipedia. I am interested in the idea that it might be possible to use the Wikiversity project to create a community where there is more respect and support for the hard work of creating an open wiki-based record of evidence that supports assertions that are made in Wikipedia articles. There is a chance that Wikiversity will be an active Wikimedia project in the near future, then it will be possible to start using it as a platform for learning how best to manage Citing Sources in a wiki. --JWSchmidt 00:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you FT2 for merging the reindeer pages and adding a smoother apperance. I was struggling with how to make each individual article unique, but they are better merged. I am glad to see what I started has now been perfected. --Merond e 12:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoosexuality and bestiality series

I was thinking - since there's a fair amount of zoosexual sub-articles, it might make sense to make a series box for it and organize it that way, like the "LGBT and Queer studies" series. For the series name I'm thinking of something like "Zoosexuality and bestiality" series. I personally feel strongely about having only one zoophilia / zoosexuality article since these words truely are synonyms, I cannot find a difference between them and I've already quoted two researchers before who state them as being synonyms, and the current state makes it rather confusing. So I suggest seeing what can be moved from the current zoophilia to the zoosexuality article and the larger sections be given their own smaller articles, which can then of course be listed in a nice series box. The current zoophilia article when redirect to what is to become the zoophilia / zoosexuality article. Will be a bit of work, but in the end should result in a more tidy and transparant situation which is easy to browse. I don't want to just start moving things myself though since you've done a lot of work on these articles and I'd like to hear your opinion on it first. Greets, BabyNuke 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email...

Got it - perusing as I type... speak to you soon :) - Glen 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang and Milne Model

I enjoyed reading your July comments in the Big Bang article's Talk. I've just added a very teensy reference to the Milne Model in the Big Bang article. I'm afraid that my answer to your questions may appear boring and nearly incomprehensible, but this is totally different from anything you've heard, and it's been around, and almost entirely ignored, since 1933.

[edit] Cultural and Historical Jesus

Please comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#Proposals Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Animal porn shop front.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Animal porn shop front.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal sexuality

Thank you for experimenting with the page Animal sexuality on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. It seems odd to me that you're vandalizing after such a long history, but I can't see it any other way. let me know what's up, if somehtin gis up, Noit 19:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page, this seems to be a slip of the revert finger, or a misunderstanding. The piece I added was a citation from a mainstream paper, of a quote attributed to a state wildlife department, on the subject of that section. Rather than just undo your revert and reinstating that citation, I've instead posted a reply on your talk page clarifying the edit, to make sure that we're clear before re-editing the article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything's fine. The absurd tone of the writing threw me off. I don't want to judge if it's a good quote to use, but it's clear to me now that it wasn't vandalism. Noit 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

At the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience the following is stated:

"Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments."

Unless you desire to become a participant in the request, I think you should move your comment to the talk page. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment (Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus)

[14] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived January 15 2007

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, FT2! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you downloaded 1.2.1, not 1.2? The link to download 1.2.1 is here. Prodego ^talk 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a while, I forgot to change my status. You need to enable cookies in IE (set then to medium), and make sure you are using an admin account on your computer. Prodego ^talk 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation (User:Skoppensboer)

I know you think I need a slap on the wrist for being a belligerent editor, and I admit I do have some rough edges, edges that you may have had some effect in smoothing off, but I'm not sure the mediation request is germane any longer. I can't conceive of any further issues we cannot work out together, now that the bulk of what I wanted to see achieved has been achieved. All along I was concerend about the overly positive tone in the zoophilia article, when I know from things I've read and seen that there are real dangers, which need to be be clearly stated. They are now, and I see far greater balance in the coverage.

Anyhow, I think the mediation request should be dropped, either by one or both of us withdrawing our agreement/signatures, or by whatever other method there is (I notice a "delete" button on the mediation page). Skoppensboer 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zoophilia.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Hello there, my name is Peter M Dodge and I go by the handle Wizardry Dragon on Wikipedia. While I am not a member of the Mediation Committee proper I have offered to mediate this case. If this is okay with you, I would like to proceed. Please let me know either way, and if you have any issues with this please let me know so I may try to address them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Little Shop of Horrors

There is no other film with the title "THE Little Shop of Horrors." The musical and its 1986 film version are titled "Little Shop of Horrors." (Ibaranoff24 08:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

As the articles for the 1986 film and the musical play are linked at the top of the article for the 1960 original, there's no need for the year of release to be in the article's title. (Ibaranoff24 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Same-sex marriage

In one of your contributions to this article, you used a reference from the Telegraph to support your assertion. However, in searching the Telegraph website, I could not find the article. Could you supply the link and/or the author's name in order to complete the reference. As it now stands, the reference does not meet WP:V. Thanks. Jeffpw 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I don't dispute the cource, but according to WP:V (so I have been told when references I used were criticized) newspapre articles need to have the author of the piece so readers can look them up. I know it's a pain. If you can't find it, it's no problem. I was just using the reference elsewhere and wanted the name for competeness. And no, I don't know where that fact can be found elsewhere, but I am willing to try later (at work now). Jeffpw 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just passing on what I learned whwen an article I wrote was up for FA. They got really picky about the references, and demanded to have authors and titles for newspaper articles. But anyway, it seems that's not the only problem with that reference. The reference supports an assertion that 31,000 Civil Unions have taken place, and according to someone on Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom(see section 9), the number is roughly the half. Either someone read the article incorrectly, or the Telegraph accidentally doubled the number (number of people cited as number of unions. Another possibility is that the person who is concerned about the number got it wrong. That's another reason I would like to double check the source. Jeffpw 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pain

Hi FT2, good to see someome else working on "Pain". Your edits look good. Please supply sources for stated facts - I'm no shining example for this in my edits on "Pain" but lately I have been off finding the sources - without cited sources oppinios get included very easily. SmithBlue 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism's view of Jesus

My initial reaction was along your lines, but I've moved away from that a bit after reading the other editors. I think the main reason not to include such a section is that not just anyone/any group should get a comment section in every article. Since only MJ supporters consider themselves Jewish, including a section on their view at all in an article about Judaisms view of Jesus, even a section that is heavy with disclaimers, seems to be something the others are resisting. And I think I understand why - it opens the door to pretty much anything. I'm still figuring this out but I think there is some merit to the idea that there are certain objective criteria to identify a Jewish denomination, beyond self-identity, but it is pretty complicated, isn't it? Kaisershatner 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canine copulation

G'day FT2. I've removed the copulation section from Canine reproduction, again. I'm not a prude, and I do respect the work you appear to have done dealing with sexual relationships of various types -- it's an area that must be reported. However, Wiki is not a grot shop, and anything as sensitive (as I am sure you appreciate) as this must be thoroughly cited. Alas, this probably means a cite in almost every (grammatical) clause. The one web reference you did supply is IMO inadequate, as it does not present veterinary research or study, only info for breeders. As well, the para on the dog turning backwards is pure crap. The only time I have EVER seen it is when the two animals have been violently disturbed, and it is extremely painful and distressing for both dog and bitch. The simple fact is that dog anatomy simply does not permit it. Gordon | Talk, 11:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I was born in the first half of last century, and both my family and myself have had dogs coming out of our ears, not to mention friends' and acquaintances' dogs. Our collective experience covers both pure-bred and mongrels. The "turning around" behaviour in our experience is totally abnormal. If you can find a number of references that demonstrate it is not abnormal behaviour, then it can -- should -- be included.

As I said -- and I do not wish to have to repeat it -- I am not a prude. What I did say is that in a subject as sensitive as sexuality (perhaps I should have been more direct and said "copulation") details of copulation must be amply cited. You claim that readers will be prepared for graphic descriptions of actual copulation -- I have no problem. But the description must be cited. Oh, BTW, given the proposed nature of the article, and some appreciation of potential readers, for example children and young adolescents, maybe some rating system might be applicable, don't you think? Like a "M 18+"? Gordon | Talk, 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courier

Howdy, I came across you through your edits on Polyamory.

Courier had a whack of text dumped on it a while back; and after avoiding it for a few weeks I did some decisive editing (some remove text can be seen on the talk page). However the article obviously could use a pro and I'm hoping at some point you would be able to have a look at this very dry subject. I'm hoping to summarize/maximize what we have and come up with new sections for suggested expansion. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [minor reformat+wikilink to ensure easy reading - see comment below. FT2]

Sorry to confuse; the article in need of help is courier. :"D - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, on all counts. This also means I'm unsure myself what needs to be added/changed; as it took significant will power to bring myself just to cleanup a text dump; let alone consider actually making editorial decisions. The first thing we could do is try to add it to a relevant (collaboration, or task list) to get others involved who may have more background/interest in the topic than us. And I think you share my sense that this is a basic topic that an encyclopedia should be comprehensive on. (I'll cc this to the article talk page; so that we can continue to collaborate/communicate there) - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived July 05 2007 (to June 2007)

[edit] Image:Camonica2.png

Could you please find a different source for Image:Camonica2.png. I don't believe the current source is entirely reliable. It looks more like a sloppy MS Paint job right now. An actuall museum would be a better source. --Phoenix Hacker 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA June 2006

[edit] Temp links related to RfA

Temp save of working edits behind hidden comment section, view source to see

[edit] RfA withdrawn

I really respect your decision to withdraw. Make sure you clean up the page into this format, and remove the RfA from the main WP:RFA page.

Though I hadn't met you before today, it would be my honor to renominate you when you feel your edit summary usage has improved enough. ??dac?t? 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. Good work, and your decision to withdraw will only make my support even stronger when you are next up. --Guinnog 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

Regarding reversions[15] made on January 5, 2007 to Labrador Retriever

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(above discussed by email with editor concerned. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

(Reference note: unblock request and evidence (diff))

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I concur that you were reverting vandalism. You might want to consider semi-protection for the article. Block lifted.

Request handled by: Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously... thank you for protecting the Labrador retriever section and for your additions. I've been fighting vandalism on that page for months. -Erikeltic

[edit] Assorted thanks

[edit] Global Warming Article

The oddest thing happened when I was reviewing the article. I scanned through the first few paragraphs and was immediately struck by an incredibly inappropriate and biased statement that had almost zero relation to the article. I can't remember the exact sentence but these words are burned into my mind: "hypotetical bullshit" and "don't believe John Kerry". I was stunned to see such a ridiculous, poorly executed and poorly spelled attempt to discredit the theory of global warming. I immediately created an account with Wikipedia so that I could register my objection to this bizarre transgression against the spirit of unbiased information. After logging on and reading the rules for discussing articles I went back to the global warming article to cite the inane statement. As you might have guessed it was no longer there. I am fairly certain that the statement in question came after the last line in the fourth paragraph: Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming.

I know that I saw those words. I know that they no longer appear for me whether I log in or not. I am reporting this in the hope that whatever is going on can be stopped.

Thanks, Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Global Warming Thanks

I love Wikipedia! Thanks for the thorough response. I am an English teacher at an inner city high school (Dorsey) in L.A. and I take immense comfort in recommending Wikipedia as a resource for my students to conduct research. I was alarmed at the nonsense Arnold 19 posted, but the processes you described are as much as one could hope for in this information age. I have ridden the Wiki-Wiki bus many times in Honolulu and have just now discovered the connection to Wikipedia; one more reason to feel good about this online encyclopedia. Again, thanks so much for the rapid and excellent discourse over my concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

(relates to this reply to this question. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're awesome

That it:).Nina Odell 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the exact same way - I can't stand ideological or copy messes. If you're also a professional masseuse with a decent car and a job, I might ask you to marry me:).Nina Odell 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You joined the neutrality project - I've been a member for a while. Check this out [[16]]. That's not even the half of it. I specialize in editing atrocities for neutrality, among other things. Nina Odell 15:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're married already, aren't you. DANG IT. :) Nina Odell 15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New Wikipedia article Covert Marriage. Nina Odell 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like to force people to read my user page, but I guess you're probably right...Are you sure someone didn't slip you a mickey and marry you? I would...but marriage is a construct anyhow. I think a ceremony is lovely, but a real marriage is built on an daily (even hourly) basis, and subject to constant change and revision. That's my two cents, anyhow. Nina Odell 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give you a chance to tweak your essay before I read it tonight. I'm off to work.:)NinaOdell | Talk 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

Good job on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#"Biographies of living persons for deletion" (BLPfD) policy proposal and [17] (See also: [18] [19] [20]). WAS 4.250 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check it out

You're on my user page - which makes you famous!:).NinaOdell | Talk 01:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A wholesale wiki-wide promotion of Wikipedia Wikiprojects. Can you whip that up? Tonight please:). NinaOdell | Talk 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects make your admin life so much easier, it will blow your mind.NinaOdell | Talk 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a background in marketing, but it doesn't seem to help much...*sigh*...NinaOdell | Talk 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please and thank you - both please!NinaOdell | Talk 02:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not working right on your talk page - see my sand box...sigh...NinaOdell | Talk 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not if you can't sit at the computer!NinaOdell | Talk 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A server would crash with the number of members on THAT page;0.NinaOdell | Talk 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am impressed ...

... by your work @ Wikipedia. I know we do not do enough of this in these wild frontiers, but here you have my appreciation for a good job well done consistently over time. Would you be interested to be nominated for the mop and the bucket? ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dudley.jpg

I reverted the image to the last version which had Dudley Manlove, removed the image from the Labrador Retriever article[21] since that was intended to be the dog version, and explained the situation to the person who uploaded the copyrighted image and added it to the Lab article.[22] BigNate37_(T) 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farmers Insurance article

I added a "Plaudits" section to counterbalance the "Criticism" selections. I did my darndest to keep NPOV, but would be grateful if you could give it a quick review to ensure that I kept my crayon inside the lines. I'm kinda new at this...Buzzards39 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farmers Insurance pt. 2

Thanks for looking. I agree with the way you have changed the section from good vs. evil to varying opinions from third parties. As I did disclose previously on Syrthiss's talk page when he was making some edits, I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers products, though I am not an employee of Farmers or its affilliates, etc... When I first looked at the page a week or so ago, there was a rather strident anti-Farmers screed posted by "Router", who I believe, though I cannot prove, is the owner of a Farmers Gripe site. I deleted the paragraph where he called Farmers the "Worst Insurance company in the USA", while leaving his examples, though I did consider them to be misleading. After a short revert war, another editor added the positive stuff that you deleted a day or two ago. Long story short, I was just trying to put some balance in there, realizing that an Insurance company will not always be in the right. If others are content with the article as written, so am I. You can see my comments on the article discussion page, as well as the talk pages of Router and Syrthiss. Again, thanks for your help. Buzzards39 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Jan 2007

[edit] Nomination

Jossi would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Jossi to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FT2 2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

[edit] I have a question about your RfA

Why did you put those boxes around your answers to the questions? And how?--C J King 04:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Readability, to make it easy for others. And it's just a table with a solid border. Check out Help:Table for how to use tables in Wikipedia, it took me some time but they're very useful to know how. The option to set a style (including border style) is easy to do. The command looks like this:

style="border:1px solid black" or if you want a background it might be: style="border:4 px dotted #603322; background-color:blue"

The thickness of the border in pixels (px), the style of the border (dotted, solid) and the color of the border (standard HTML colors such as black, blue, darkgrey, or RGB based such as #603322) are all things you define. The code for a simple section of text with a box round it might be:

{| style="border:1px black solid"
| usual text in a table
* list
* list
more text
|}

and that will look like this:

usual text in a table

list
list

more text

You can indent by adding a colon before the initial {| if you like - but no space between ::: and {| or else the markup won't work.

Hope that helps! Good luck! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catching up

Oh, I'm not bad. In college now. It's so weird to think that I edited WP back in high school, and that I'm still (sort of) at it. How 'bout you? I seriously would have thought you'd have been an admin by now. (Although it's kind of cool that I get to vote in your RFA ^_^) ♠PMC♠ 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Congratulations! --Guinnog 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You're now an admin, so have fun using the new tools to help the project keep improving. Use them conservatively, especially at first, and re-read the policies as necessary. Don't hesistate to ask for help, and dig in to help out with the backlogs! - Again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done! If you need any help with your shiny new admin tools then please don't hesitate to ask. Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Even though I opposed your nomination, I hope that the issues raised in the process help you in your decision process, and that you prove me wrong and justify the community's trust in you. -- Avi 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, too. Have fun with your new responsibilities! :-) --Conti|✉ 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My first edits post-RfA will be as follows:

This post (if I don't mention this one, somebody else will). Done. [23]
1. Fix the darn mistyped wikilinks in the above :P (okay, add that one in, too) Done. [24]
If it's not clear already, clarify in the article I wrote a few weeks back, Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control, that admins don't have a privileged voice in discussion, beyond certain limited powers used to ensure discussions run smoothly. Done. [25]
Sign up for Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks (if anyone actually asks for help on this, I'll have to get advice in some cases for starters , but like I said, its a point of principle that people aren't in fear of doing the Right Thing, so count me in). Done. [26]
Watchlist the 'suspected socks' page, again as I commited to do to the RfA participants.
Thank individually each of those who gave 'oppose' and 'neutral' votes, for their honesty, and see if any follow-up is of use.
Thank individually each of those who were supportive and showed trust, and undertake to try and continue to live up to their standards.
Reread all the things I didn't need to know the minutae of, until now.
Carry on with Philosophy, and a few other articles I'm working on, and hope they go smoothly.

A brief generic "thank you" first for the trust... and now I'm off to grab a coffee. May we all in our own ways, find ourselves Doing the Right Thing and support each other. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was an interesting RfA, wasn't it? Congrats on the successful nomination and may you wield the mop and bucket with equanimity, grace, and humility.

If you want to get some great tools to assist you with the janitorial aspects of adminship, you can check my User:Jossi/monobook.js. I can help you customize it if you need. ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles update:

During the RfA I significantly updated or worked on the following articles. However I did not update my user page "list of articles", or list them here, in order to prevent the appearance of self-promotion. Now the RfA is over: Linux distribution ... Cheddar Gorge and Caves ... Philosophy (editor dispute) ... Solid state disk / Solid state drive (merge) ... Wikipedia talk:Notability (software) ... Personhood ... Wikipedia:Appealing a block ... Watch ... Farmers Insurance Group (COI) ... WP:3RR ... Nuisance.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done from me too. Good luck with the mop. The Rambling Man 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

May I add my congratulations. Thanks also for your explanation and apology, though I see that you still have not said on Talk:Tie and tease that you will not make it a redirect again. I had not noticed that you made Ruined orgasm into a redirect, but I shall revert it. I do hope that you can take away two lessons: don't make major alterations when you aren't 100% awake, and don't edit in areas you don't understand. Best of luck as an admin, and if I can help you with the benefit of my experience as an admin on Wipipedia, I shall be delighted.--Taxwoman 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Query [WooHooKitty advice]

I'll write ya a bit later tonight ok. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. First of all, are you sure you have admin access? I don't see you listed as an admin. Now even if you don't have admin access, you can mediate disputes. In fact, some people like it better when non-admins mediate. Advantages for both cases.

Anyway, the main thing is to try to keep as neutral as you can. And if you have personal feelings about the issues, try to keep them under wraps. Think of yourself as a referee or an umpire or a judge. You are non-partial and have no official position on any content issues. You are just there to keep people in check and to get people to work together. Now, don't get intimidated by those who say "well you are favoring the other side!". Remember NLP. It wasn't that the mentors favored the pro-NLP side. They were just much easier to deal with and didn't violate rules nearly as often as the anti-NLP side.

As for protecting pages. Well. It's a judgment call. If you feel as though things are getting out of hand, then ask for protection or if you have the power, protect the page yourself. What does "out of hand" mean? This is a good example. Page was being edited rather quietly and not that often and then BAM! Lots of reverts and name calling and hostility. That's when it was time to protect. The number of edits aren't really what you go by. In fact, an article with alot of interest (like philosophy) is going to be heavily edited. What you by is what the edits are and in what attitude the edits are being made in. The red flag for me personally is when people are discussing things in edit summaries but not on the talk page as in that example I gave you. That's a good indicator that it's time to protect the page, let people cool off and see if you can get them to talk on the talk page.

As for editing protected pages, don't do it. :) Unless. It's a non-controversial edit or it's something that a consensus has been gotten on. Otherwise, as soon as you edit a protected page or declare an edit by an involved party "vandalism" and revert it while the page is protected, you make people think that you are biased even if you aren't. It's just not a good idea.

Well that's all I have for now. If you need any other help, feel free to ask. I really appreciate that you came to me. I'm not a bragging type but I do have almost 2 years experience as an admin so I've been around the block a few times. So. Any questions, ask. Like I said, if you don't have admin powers, you can still do just fine. You'll just need to ask me or another admin to do whatever it is you need to do. My main thing? Stay neutral. Just think of yourself as a referee and not a player. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll copy your response in here and then respond. Easier.

* If I'm helping with a dispute, as opposed to a "stake" in the article, does that make me "involved" for PPRO and BP purposes?

- Depends on who you ask. :) To me, if you are actively involved in mediating something, it is actually a responsibility of yours to block and protect when necessary. As someone with admin access, you are essentially a cop. You would only be considered involved if you had edited the article in the past. Are there others who think differently? Yes. But I think the general consensus would be that you are acting neutral and therefore, should be able to block and protect without problems.

* If I'm clearly there just to help it flow better in response to a problem, am I at risk of being hauled over coals if I take (appropriate) action after warning or making the problem clear, on protection (edit war) or blocks (if one party is visibly persistent with personal attacks or other policy breaches), etc?

- Raked over the coals by whom? Are you referring to the users involved in the situation or other admins? In the case of users involved, yes. You will always have users who say you are biased or who will complain when you do blocks. As for other admins, as long as you keep the blocks appropriate and the protection time appropriate, you should be ok. What's an appropriate block? Well the general consensus is 12 or 24 hours for a first offense. It depends on how severe it is. Then after that, I myself double. So 48 hours and then 96, etc. But again it's up to you. If it's a user who has been behaving and suddenly goes off the deep end, a short block is ok. But remember. Before you do ANY blocks, the users need to be warned once and probably twice. Gotta have a long leash. This isn't like NLP where there was no leash.

* If I'm already involved with an article, and a problem blows up (some heavy duty POV editor arrives on the scene and such), wheres the line where you would personally say "I'm too involved, I won't block or protect even if the behavior or edit war is outrageous, I'll post on WP:ANI instead"? * If a banned/blocked editor that I was involved with (such as our sock-vandal from last year) appears to come back, would you say that blocking the new sock was appropriate, or should I ask someone else to because I was previously involved in that dispute before the block/ban?

- I'll handle these 2 at once. If it's someone you've dealt with before, yes, go to AN/I or AN. Absolutely. As for being too involved, if you stay neutral, you should be ok. But you know, if you aren't sure about a decision or are debating what to do, yes, definitely go to AN or AN/I. Sometimes guidance and support from others is helpful. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I think you get the gist of it. If you are there as a neutral party by agreement of a consensus of people involved, then you are considered uninvolved yourself. As for the NLP socks, if they do appear, I would suggest sending it to AN/I or AN or maybe request a checkuser. I wouldn't recommending blocking them on your own. That could lead to problems. Honestly, you could bring them to my attention as well. I did alot of work on NLP but I'm still a neutral party on it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] congratulations

Congratulations! For what it is worth, my main piece of advice is: generally, do not act any different now than you did six months or a year ago. Administrators have certain powers but I prefer to see them as comparable to the powers a housecleaner or garbagemen have, rather than a cop or judge - they enable us to help out with countless meaintenance jobs (e.g. our version of cleaning up grafitti). It is true that among these are powers to block users or protect pages, but I have made it a rule of mine (which I admit, with regret, that I do not always live up to) never to use these powers based on my own judgement - i.e. I will only use them when Wikipedia policy makes it an unquestionable and thus practically automatic act, or when there is such a strong consensus that my act is simply executing what is clearly the will of the community.

It is true that you may be able to help mediate a dispute effectively, or resolve one, or guide the improvement of an article. But in virtually all of these cases (in my experience) your ability has nothing to do with your being an administrator, just with your experience, knowledge of the policies, and good sense - i.e. virtues you had long before you became an adminisrator, and virtues shared by many non-administrators. It is the posession of these virtues that is important and merits respect, and they have nothing to do with being an administrator as such. In other words, someone who isn't an administrator but who is experience, knows the policies, and has good judgement is just as (and sometimes more) likely to improve a situation as I can, despite the fact I have been an admin for a few years.

I hope you don't mind some more advice (and needless to day, this is all just my opinion), but I can finish up by giving you practically all the advice I could possibly give anyone in just a few more sentences. One: Avoid wikilawyering whenever possible. Two: Almost all conflicts can be resolved by (1) patience (willing to let things play out over a few days or weeks) and (2) careful attention to our core policies, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. Assume people act on good faith and give people the benefit of the doubt as long as they are not violating these policies; if someone clearly violates them gently encourage them to read them carefully but don't hesitate to revert if that is what is necessary to comply with the policies. Three: remember, always remember, that talk pages are for improving articles. If someone starts using a talk page as a soap box or platform for long, tangential discussions, (1) do not get sucked in (I know, this is hard to avoid!) and (2) discourage the contributor from misusing the talk page. To echo what I wrote above, I would share this advice with any editor and I do not think one needs to be an administrator to follow this advice and many great editors who are not administrators follow these principles all the time. Any time I see an editor who follows these principles and who is criticizing something I did, I really do try to step back and reconsider whatever it is I have done - even if that person is not an admin, and I am.

Anyway, best of luck! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congrats on your new set of buttons =) I found them shiny and to my liking; hopefully you do too. If you need any advice, of course I'm always here. Mostly I've been keeping quiet. I haven't been adding much content lately...too lazy. Mostly I'm just wandering around deleting things at CSD and PROD. *shrug* It's a living, eh? ♠PMC♠ 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misc aftermath of RfA

[edit] Closing AfDs

Hi FT2, remember when closing AfDs to put the header ABOVE the section header, and not below, as it affects the bot making it think they are still open! Cheers. --Majorly (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for the headers

Go for it. :) There'll be a few things you'll need to change (mainly the status template, if you want to keep that). Let me know if there's anything confusing in there. Luna Santin 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SD

what is "deleted under A"? Any links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.36.247 (talk • contribs)

replied, see User talk:125.22.36.247

[edit] Dudley (dog)

Just a message to let you know that I redirected the article Dudley (dog) that you nominated for deletion, but which resulted in a no consensus, to Labrador Retriever. For the reasons, see the AfD discussion and Talk:Dudley (dog). Hopefully your concerns are addressed this way. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy article dispute

[edit] Penchant for cleanup

Hi, I saw your userpage comment that you enjoy writing intros to contentious articles, and I thought maybe you'd like to have a stab at Philosophy, which is in the middle of a bit of a kurfuffle. (I'm just observing from the sidelines, not involved). Just a thought, if you have any spare time (ha!) and interest. :) —Quiddity 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a list of external examples and past diff examples in this thread, Talk:Philosophy#Interlude.

The present problem seems to be Ludvikus trying to take over, and he's on course for an RfC for editwarring and personal attacks if he keeps it up. It might be more complex than that? Sorry it's not much to go on.

Based on the history page: Lucidish, Banno, Dbuckner, and Rick Norwood are longtime contributors there. Lucidish started the article itself. —Quiddity 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good :) —Quiddity 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Quiddity's summary. I've worked with Lucidish (Ben Nelson), Banno, and Norwood over many years to defend this article. Don't forget also Mel Etitis who is a distinguished Oxford philosopher. There were disagreements before but nothing like this. The problem is not one but two difficult editors who arrived at the same time. Ludvikus is, as the man says, heading for an RfC. Lucaas is not so aggressive, but has a poor grasp of English, combined with a belief that he knows everything about everything. If you could help, much appreciated. Mel gave a very good summary of the problem, (why Philosophers don't edit the Philosophy page) - I have a link to it on my user page. Best Dbuckner 14:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One further point - there is less disagreement between professional philosophers over the basic definition than you would think. There is a page Definition of philosophy which summarises what different philosophers have said on various key points, all of which should be somewhere in the introduction, in my view. Dbuckner 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Philosophy

Good work! Best of luck to you. It's good to have you on board.

From what I've read you wrote so far, things can only get better.

Sincerely, --Ludvikus 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Hello. You are handling this very well. You made two points in the philosophy page that I would like to answer here, as the talk page is cluttered enough as it is.

1. You say "As I understand it, there will be two kinds of sources that are helpful: notable philosophers who gave their own opinions, and notable comentators, academics and researchers (writers on philosophy etc) who summarized what the main threads in various debates were, and also often added their own views and interpretations as specialists/experts of various standings. Both are potentially useful sources. Has anyone suggested a good reason to completely exclude either?"

I have one reservation about the former approach, which is that when notable philosophers attempt to say something about philosophy in their philosophical work proper (as opposed to introductions for beginners, which many notable philosophers never wrote), they say things which are profound, difficult, cryptic, controversial, slanted to their own view &c. Thus Socrates says philosophy is like being a midwife. Kant says it is like milking a he-goat with a sieve. Wittgenstein says it is like getting a fly out of a fly-bottle. I can quote you many other things like that. The difficulty here is that such remarks require interpretation, and I read WP:OR as specifically warning against any source that requires interpretation. Thus I prefer the rather dull and prosaic definitions you find in sources by authoritative writers, like Quinton or Ayer or others, aimed at a beginner audience. Which is what WP should be.

2. You also asked for a brief flavour of what the dispute is about. Easy. The whole controversy is about whether the method of philosophy should be characterised is rational, logical, critical &c. It's odd, because all professionally trained philosophers agree at least on that (thought on not much else). Yet the debate is raging around that. It's mostly due to the fact that it is very much between professionally trained philosophers, and people who are not.

Hope that helps. Dbuckner 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ludvikus

I'm afraid your attempt to put things right on the Philosophy page was hopelessly optimistic. Ludvikus is completely out of control. I am simply reverting everything he edits, and will continue until he is permanently banned. Dbuckner 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For a sample of this drivel, see my comments here. Dbuckner 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control

I just read this which you largely wrote yourself. It seems a fine piece of work. Well done. --Guinnog 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ludvikus

There are actually two problem editors on this page, but the other one (Lucaas) is better behaved, so I shall stick to the one called Ludvikus here. The problem is that

The philosophy article needs to cover 2,500 years of philosophical history in a tight, concise way, with relevant links to more detailed articles. Ludvikus persists on posting long rambles about pet subjects (mostly OR), such as McCarthyism.

The reverts have mostly been reverts by other users, pointing out that, while new contributions need discussion, deletion of contributions made without any consensus can be deleted without discussion

Ludvikus is obsessive (follow his edit trail) making dozens or even hundreds of edits a day, works through the night and is utterly tireless.

He will discuss changes, but in a prolix and unproductive way that makes cooperation tiresome.

His changes are unsourced. Moreover they are mostly disconnected stream-of-consciousness ranting in broken English, and are generally peculiar in some way.

The Bristol Stool Scale comment by an admin is splendid, and sums the problem up perfectly. Dbuckner 09:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And here is a comment by another user that sums it up well. Dbuckner 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

PS The user has now been blocked for 48 hours. That solves the problem for 48 hours, at least. Dbuckner 12:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seconding DBuckers comments

I have to support DBuckners comments here. I have a laypersons background in philosophy, but I am a practicing, licensed psychiatrist. Trace my IP address, and you will find my office and medical license verified. DBuckner is entirely correct in what he says. This editor Ludvikus is entirely out of control, and I am telling you, unless some action is taken to deal with this, it will go on indefinitely, and ruin the effort of collaboration in the philosophy section. Richiar 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter King

I see from his talk page (User talk:Peter J King) that you haven't invited Peter. He is the most competent philosopher on the WP. As you can see from his talk page, he is very depressed about the state of the article, and will need some persuasion to be involved, but would be worth it. I'll say a few things about how your approach seems to be working wonders &c, if that helps. Actually, not having Ludvikus for 48 hours has helped as well. However, we will have him back tomorrow so we will have to see how it goes. Best. Dbuckner 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But see my note on Banno's page after finding vandalism elsewhere. There really is no place for the professionally trained in Wikipedia. Really isn't. Dbuckner 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on Logic

This is probably better for your talk page.

The concept of category is fundamental to Aristotle's thinking, to much of the thought of the Middle Ages. Aristotle says that every kind of thing falls into one of 10 categories. Some reductionist logicians, especially Ockham, disagreed with this, and argued that there are fewer categories (substance, predicate and relation from memory). Others disagreed. I don't understand your remark about this connecting somehow with 'rhetoric'. Rhetoric is generally regarded as 'cheap tricks' for winning arguments, not to be confused with 'logic'. On the West-East thing – I don't understand what you mean by 'nondual'. Generally, to those who argue that Eastern philosophy is really very different from 'Western', I say, put it all in a different article, and for goodness sake give it a respectable, careful treatment. On the other hand, if it really is similar, reference appropriate sources.

On the development of logic, this is a huge subject (and a specialist area of mine). Roughly, most of it all came from Aristotle, though some important parts contributed by the Stoics. It was developed and formalised extensively in the Middle Ages, but the Aristotelian and Stoic bits were never properly integrated. The integration was by Frege, Peirce and others, who transformed it into what we have now. The mathematicians, as far as I know, never contributed much until Frege. Hope that helps.

Dbuckner 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the material on 'nondual'. Can I dare to say this is not philosophy, as I understand it? Dbuckner 14:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The thing to bear in mind is that many traditions - mystical, religious, alchemical, and so on, attempt to address the 'big questions'. Philosophy, uniquely, tries to address these by a rigorously logical approach, which includes a certain view on how things are categorised, and many things besides. None of the things you've described look like Philosophy to me.
The problem is that 'philosophy' has a very wide sense in which it also means the mystical, meditational, alchemical and so on. But these are all very different from philosophy as studied in departments of philosophy. Indeed, when I taught it you often got students who thought they were going to study yoga or meditation or whatever. We had to explain they had got in the wrong course by mistake.
I should also say that professional philosophers tend to get a little annoyed, indeed incandescent when this confusion happens. You have to be careful! Dbuckner 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ludvikus

FT2, I have been asked on my talk page to commence an wp:rfc on user:Ludvikus. However, I think that there is enough evidence here now to implement a community ban for Disruptive editing. Specifically, mainly and briefly:

His editing of Philosophy is tendentious. The talk page amply demonstrates that there is little support for his views. Furthermore his his affectation of martyrdom is tedious.
He is campaigning to drive away productive contributors. His actions on Philosophy make that page unlikely to attract new editors. His insults on user talk:Peter J King clearly had a strong influence on his removing himself from the Wikipedia. His comments on user:Mel Etitisare another example, including the disruptive posts for which I blocked him; indeed, his obnoxious approach to other editors in general, and the sheer volume of tendentious material he posts, "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors". I've also noted that - probably thankfully - he has not engaged in the discussions you have set up.

Would you object to such a ban? I would value your opinion. If not, I will implement it forthwith. Otherwise, we will be faced with the longer process of an RfC. Thanks, Banno 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I wasn't asking for your advice; but simply if you would object. I've used the arbitration process enough to know that it is far too slow - the very reason that community bans were introduced. Since it seems that you cannot see the problem, I will commence an RfC in the hope of producing sufficient evidence to support a community ban, or to collect sufficient evidence for arbitration. Banno 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(That post came out sounding too terse. I understand the position you are in, and apologise for compromising it. I do not think that mediation will succeed with this particular individual; I have been contacted both on my user page and by email by others who agree. As Mel said, he is not the only problem, but he is certainly the main problem.) Banno 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have stopped work

I am no longer working on the Philosophy article. Conditions on the talk page make it impossible. I will return (both to the article and the workshop) when something is done about the disruptive editor. Dbuckner 08:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] brief comments on philosophy page

As someone who has offered suggestions for improvement of the philosophy page, I was requested to send you my comments on the current problem. First of all, given the nature of philosophy's scope and variety of motivations, a collaboration on a general article on philosophy is a nearly impossible task itself, making consensus and vigilance over disputes and disruptive editors more critical than other articles. I agree with the editors such as DBruckner and Banno that the editor in question is making reasonable work on the article difficult if not impossible right now due to 1) the personal nature of his comments 2) rapid-fire 24/7 commentary on the talk page, making it difficult to respond and collaborate. I don't think, however, that he is entirely unreasonable or lacking knowledge; though I think editors who are involved front-and-center with philosophy (as students or professionally) should be given some weight. That certainly does not mean that nonacademics don't have a valuable say, but philosophy as a topic will continue to be a failed experiment on wikipedia without expert guidance, even and especially if that means a number of experts arguing (making good arguments) over the basics of philosophy. This type of debate is currently overshadowed. Zeusnoos 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was also asked to leave a comment. I agree with much of what Zeusnoos said: philosophy is now, and always will be, a problem area. Also, I appreciate your measured approach to the dispute: nobody can ask you to do anything that does not conform to the usual Wikipedia stages of conflict resolution. Studious temperance is a measure of prudence.

That having been said, I've spent a year on this article, and have at least some idea of what the usual state of quarrelling is like. The most recent situation is a departure from the norm, in the sense that there are frequent battles that are literally grounded upon nothing, but whose consequences are more or less tragic. The cause is that some parties are simply not willing to discuss anything with other editors -- they completely and persistently ignore what has been said to them, and then produce reams of material against imaginary demons.

I.E.: the introduction mentions words like "rational" and "enquiry"; these words are (wrongly) taken to be signals of "anglophone" or "analytic" philosophy; and use of these words in a single description of philosophy are taken to indicate an exclusion of non-analytic and non-"Anglo" philosophy. This is like going to an article about God and getting steamed because some people are quoted as insisting that He must be a swell guy; after all, some people think God is a jerk, so if you say "some people think God is swell", then you're marginalizing those who think he's a jerk. The mere expression of a single point of view is taken to be a violation of NPOV policy. That's a special kind of censorship -- the sort that plays the victim in order to pull everyone else's strings.

The above leaps over NPOV policy seem ridiculous, but it is likely because they stem from continued misreadings of the positions of other editors. Repeatedly, I have expressed how I would like for well-written and economical points about non-analytic positions to be included. These are ignored. The problem editors have closed their ears. Nothing can be done so long as their behavior continues as it has. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Situation desparate

I am so confused, I can't follow any of the discussion. This is not just disruption, its total chaos. I regretfully submit, per request for participation, that a ban on said individual is essential. Comment on the remark: "He's actually improved lately"-well, no, he just recycles. With no disrespect to him, there must be apppropriate self control demonstrated by editors. I further submit, that this situation is so bad, that experts in the field of philosophy have been driven away, which is tragic to the Wikipedia project. To this I stongly object. Furthermore, as a member of the forum of encyclopedic standards, this presents the need for editing protocols. It means the difference between having an encyclopedia and the national enquirer. Sincerely Richiar 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with the other editors above. Ludvikus has repeatedly violated WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and is displaying very strong symptoms of MPOV and WP:OWN (at book parts too). He ignores stylistic conventions on talkpages and within articles, and skirts the edge of WP:NPA with constant sarcasm and innuendo, and a confrontational attitude. I'd agree that firm action of some sort is needed. (See also his letter on Jimbo's talkpage) --Quiddity 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Appeal to Jimbo" posts usually communicate rather more, and rather more deeply, than the writer would probably wish. If there is merit to it, it will be clear. if there is none then that will also be clear. Therefore for me it's not something I view per se as a problem. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I am an observer of the dispute about the philosophy page, admiring of your Norwegian-Mid-East-peace negotiator-like efforts, but I feel another point of view should perhaps be put. I feel a few points should be made that have not been made, if action is to be taken against Ludvikus.

Your account of Ludvikus's activities tended, at one point, to give the impression he is the kind of crackpot who believes in conspiracies of world domination perpetrated by the Masons and the Jews. Despite the postings you reference in this regard (which have a high degree of irony), I think these are the kind of crackpots Ludvikus feels he is combating. He also seems to be fighting for what he thinks is textual accuracy in relation to the Protocols (I have no idea if he is right). In other words, he's a different kind of crackpot.
There is no doubt that Ludvikus has proven hard to deal with, for those "editing" the philosophy entry. There is no doubt he shows signs of grandiosity, of mania, and of narcissism. And there is no doubt he has added nothing of worth to the actual article about philosophy. But to me there is still the appearance of a lynch mob going on (a lynch mob will sometimes lynch a guilty man, but they're still a lynch mob). Why do those opposed to Ludvikus so relentlessly take the bait? To answer this question means asking: what kind of people are drawn to the "philosophy" article? The answer is: the grandiose. I can put it like this: Ludvikus is grandiose in an overt way; those editors opposing him tend to be grandiose in a covert way. Which is why they flail about how terrible everything is, about how intolerable everything is, etc. (or else, how concerned they are, that Ludvikus may be violent, etc.). They all want to be involved in the "Philosophy" article because they perceive it to be important, a flagship, etc. And their individual grandiose intentions and pretentions inevitably produce ego clashes. Nobody wants to blame themselves for this, so they find the individual who can become the scapegoat (indeed, who wants to become the scapegoat).
And this is, really, Ludvikus's point. Whatever the academic status of the various editors, they are all mediocre. More than that, they lack insight (even that line: "the entry on philosophy only shows what non-philosophers think philosophy is"—no doubt the philosophy article is terrible, but this comment shows something about its author too). ALL OF THEM prefer talking on the talk pages to actually writing something. NONE OF THEM has the will to ignore "disruption" and simply continue doing what they're doing, because, given a choice, they prefer to blame and attack somebody else rather than risking finding out they aren't up to the job.
It is not possible to tell if Ludvikus is playing a game or sincere: there really isn't much difference, maybe he is a sincere game-player. That is, he wants to provoke because he sincerely wants to stimulate the other editors to a kind of introspection, to philosophy. But naturally this is not the response he gets, and thus they show themselves to be lacking philos as well as sophia, that is, not to be philosophers. To which their response would be, either, "yes I am, I have a degree to prove it," or, "I don't need to be, I'm an encyclopedia writer on philosophy," but to which Ludvikus would seem to be saying: but you should be trying harder than that, if you want to write this very important entry on "Philosophy". That's his Socrates/Jesus/Napoleon/Nietzsche complex in a nutshell, but its a grandiosity common to all of them. He expresses his grandiosity flamboyantly, where the others repress it, so that it comes out as a kind of resentment and barely-suppressed aggression
I don't know what the consequence of the above is, or if it makes any difference at all. But I do feel the impression that the other editors are good solid workers, of good intent, and good faith, is contestable, and that Ludvikus' manner of expressing himself makes this point, but that his manner of expressing himself also means this point will not be heard. Again, he has not made a positive contribution to the article, and he has indeed been disruptive, but perhaps what he disrupted was not itself a positive contribution, and when he is gone, the "work" will continue, but whose work, and what kind? ObserverA 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the above post is eloquently stated, and there is much truth to it. The Philosophy editors tend to be cranky, obstinate, melodramatic, cynical, etc. But it is also, frankly, a characature, based upon a few first blush impressions, and makes bold and plainly false and plainly infelicitous claims. IE:

To say that "ALL OF THEM prefer talking on the talk pages to actually writing something" is not taking the actual efforts of the people there seriously, and is belied by a year's worth of attempts, by myself and, well, everyone. The history page is there for anyone who wants to read it.

"NONE OF THEM has the will to ignore "disruption" and simply continue doing what they're doing, because, given a choice, they prefer to blame and attack somebody else rather than risking finding out they aren't up to the job" is either a) contradicting earlier admissions by implying (by use of scare quotes around "disruption") that the editor has not been disruptive; or b) if it is an admission of disruptiveness, then it suggests i) that an "ignore it and it will go away" approach would work, and ii) assumes that it hadn't already been tried; and both are false claims. Then, the curious "prefer to blame... rather than risking... etc." expression is added to the end as a non-sequitur. Can't a person blame nobody at all, and still be ignorant of their own faults? Does blame of others preclude self-criticism?

There is a purpose to Wikipedia talk pages, but their purpose is evidently at odds with Observer's idea of them. The purpose of the talk page is to improve the article. Thus, claims like "they show themselves to be lacking philos as well as sophia" because of a lack of philosophical musings is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is appropriate for blogs, etc. No good Wikipedia editor, as Wikipedia editor, is a philosopher, a scientist, poet or peddler. We are teachers and writers and that is it.

In my estimation, amateur psychologizing about "covert graniosity" and "suppression" and so on is perfectly ignoranble. Once we reach that level of debate, there really is no debate anymore, there is just a sewing circle. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 22:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi FT2. Just wanted to let you know that I am not a sock-puppet (as I believe they are called) for Ludvikus. I am an observer of the philosophy shemozzle, and it would not surprise me if there quite a few others who simply watch the page without writing, given the interest in philosophy, and the many reasons dissuading contributors (Ludvikus being only one of those). I would not really characterise my comment as a "defence" of Ludvikus, but more an attempt to put a counter-view to those being put forward, or as an attempt to put things in a different context. As I stated explicitly, Ludvikus IS disruptive, and has NOT made a positive contribution. Just not sure of the positivity of the other contributors either, for reasons outlined. I would further point out that Lucidish's comment to my comment to a certain extent highlights what I am saying: e.g., I did not say that the other editors DON'T make any edits to the entry, just that they PREFER to talk on talk pages; also, e.g., he refuses to give any credit to the notion that scapegoating might be a way of avoiding self-reflection. Nor was I trying to say what talk pages are for or not for, nor was I saying that there are no reasons for being aggravated by Ludvikus. Finally, I have posted my comment under another name than I ordinarily use, because I do not really want to get caught up in a "defence" of Ludvikus, but I do feel the whole situation reflects on all the participants poorly. Hope this clarifies things a little. ObserverA 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi FT2. One last thing. I only reluctantly and hesitatingly decided to leave my comment, because its really not my thing (although I am interested in philosophy more generally). I felt like leaving the comment because I felt the chorus of unanimity masked some other issues (and by the way, I am no fan of Lucaas either; I find him an unhelpful fellow who knows very little but is quick on the draw edit-wise). I understand that you are checking my sock-puppet status in relation to Ludvikus, which I understand, and it is fine with me if you make public the results of this search. But if possible I would prefer if you did not then reveal my other username, since I really don't want to get caught up in this or attract fire from people who disagree with me (in short, I'm afraid they might interfere in the editing I do under that name). Just wanted to make my comment and leave it to others to sort out (such as yourself). Good luck. ObserverA 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am surprised you would cite my use of "Jewish language" as some sort of evidence. ObserverA 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Observer. Many of your intentions were communicated accurately enough; I was only thrown off by your use of scare quotes, and was unsure if any implicature was present. Anyway, it's important that my reply is read accurately as well, so I trust you won't mind this follow-up. a) Your claim about "preference" is a wild characature, given the breadth of the efforts that have in fact been made. b) It is not that I "refuse" to give any credit to the notion that scapegoating might be a way of avoiding self-reflection; rather, I entertained the idea, and i) found it more likely due to the fact that Philosophy editors seem to be obstinate and melodramatic by default; ii) found it to be the kind of dime-store psychologizing that makes good faith discussions impossible. c) I'm sorry, I have no idea how to interpret "and thus they show themselves to be lacking philos as well as sophia, that is, not to be philosophers" except as a slight, and a covert recommendation that we rabble get our hands dirty with a bit of philosophy. Only in that context does it seem to make an argumentative contribution. Otherwise, it's frankly just another curious remark among curious remarks. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi FT2, just letting you know I sent you an email half an hour or so ago. ObserverA 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your reluctance not to give your real name and want to appear, as such, like a fuzzed out face on television. The reason is? In defending Ludvikus, you fear the wrath of certain people, you must obviously have witnessed this wrath. Take responsibility! As to my edits on the page to which you refer they are, unlike much of wiki-philosophy, fully referenced, though I admit that only within English-speaking philosophy do they represent a minority position. And I remind you that having a minority position, which may differ from your majoritarian view, does not imply that, like Socrates, one is ignorant. ---- Lucas (Talk) 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of brief points. I have only been involved in the philosophy part of Wikipedia for a matter of weeks. Far from wanting to write the Philosophy article, all I planned to do was make some improvements to the Heidegger page, as it's a particular interest of mine. I quickly found out that on that and related pages, attempts to improve were systematically blocked. At this point, a few philosophy editors do seem to be working on elements of the philosophy article, but on each other's talk pages or elsewhere, because the main philosophy talk page has become a no-go area. PREFER [sic] to talk on the talk pages? The philsophy talk page has been virtually inactive, other than for Luvikus, since Jan 24. KD Tries Again 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)KD

[edit] Thanks for the help

Thanks for all the help you are giving this, FT. Sorry if it ever got a bit heated on my part. My nerves got a bit shredded by the whole experience. Your level-headed & cool approach is a great help. As I said, I am not getting involved directly any more, but happy to answer any questions you have. I liked your approach on the philosophy project, and happy to continue with that, though preferably after this has died down (if it ever does, of course!). Best wishes Dbuckner 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The comment you asked about

Things have been a bit blurred recently, but I believe it referred to the initial posting of material on the Analytic/Continental schism followed by the sub-section of Historical Notes. I (and others) listed numerous errors on the Talk Page. When corrections were made in the article, the authors sought to defend the material by reversions. Some corrections stuck, I think - I did manage to make Scandinavia non-English speaking - but most of the errors remain in the locked version. I hope this helps. KD Tries Again 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

The Schism material was added by Lucaas, who retained it from a recently deleted article on Anglophone/Continental philosophy. The historical notes were, I am pretty sure, the work of Ludvikus. Of course, other hands might have fiddled with it by the time I commented.KD Tries Again 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

[edit] Email Receivable, But not Sendable at this time

I got your 5 points.
What you would like is very easy for me to give you.
And it's nice to have a civil voice like yours around.
I give you, my word, on said five points. Now here's what I would like:
1. A public apology from User:Mel Etitis for rating me a "6 or 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart".
2. Removable of the Stigma associated with User:Banno's 48 hour ban against me.
3. Please answer, or ask of me, anything you wish, by just sending me an Email, anytime.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ObserverA [sock?]

It's clear that ObserverA is a sock-puppet of somebody, an account created only to make these comments and to attack the editors on Philosophy etc. I wonder who feels the need to hide behind it, though? Is it cowardice, embarrassment at attacking those he or she would normally pretend to be friendly with, or what? peculiar. --Mel Etitis (?e? ?t?t??) 12:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To Mel Etitis, it is clear that I am speaking from an account created in order to leave the comment. What makes it clear is that I said it. And I also stated the reasons I was doing it. To suggest this is "cowardice" is just silly. ObserverA 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And the reason I left my comment was not "to attack the editors on Philosophy," no more than it was to defend Ludvikus. ObserverA 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, have you seen User talk:Ludvikus#Reverts on Jews and Bolshevism topics? Is he getting worse, or just being the same but over a wider area? --Mel Etitis (?e? ?t?t??) 13:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just to make a point that shouldn't have to be made, I didn't place Ludvikus anywhere on the Bristol Stool Chart — he has (genuinely or deliberately) misread my comment (and then repeated it all over the shop in its misinterpreted form). --Mel Etitis (?e? ?t?t??) 13:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This denial is completely untrue, and designed to mislead you. He rated me a "6 or a 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart". Now will you permit me to rate him on it, and here? If you do it will clear the place in my mind of his very foul odor. I have asked him to apologize. But he seems to refuse to do so. Instead he is being vindictive towards me. He now has launched a compaign of personally attacking me as someone who goes around calling other editors "Antisemites" I believe that the major "disruptor" in the "shop" is Mel Etitis. The others (and I'm not naming them) are all under his control. It is I who have been the victim of personalattacks from the very beginning. I think you should consider whether Mel should suffer a Community Ban. If you re-examine the evidence, you would agree. --Ludvikus 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what Wiki Civility requires: Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Yours truly, Ludvikus 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my words from before, I have stated all I intend to on this issue. It is not a debate I wish to watch grow. I ask that you drop it without further discussion, and I ask Mel not to raise it or talk uncivilly again, and that's my sole discussion on it right now. Especially not here. Thanks, both. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"his very foul odor" is your notion of civility? --Mel Etitis (?e? ?t?t??) 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Lucas

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment referenced here says it all. A very good editor is leaving an important article. As I say on the talk page (I'm sorry to have to be so blunt) it is the fault of people like you that this is happening. It doesn't have to be that way. Anyway, I am taking another Wiki break - the trolls have won as far as I am concerned. Your approach guarantees that good editors like MT will leave (and he really is a good editor - I was trying to encourage people like him to stay) and the good will you have shown to the trolls ensures that they will stay. And now Ludvikus is back this week. It is all too much. Dbuckner 07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

FT2, your lengthy reply to Dbuckner's comment on the Talk:Philosophy page seems to boil down to: "don't be upset, if Lucas is such a rotten editor, then a slow, dispassionate evaluation of the evidence will show that to be the case, and the machinery of consensus will make it all better". But this guy has been "contributing" to Wikipedia for six months now, with the exact same pattern of edits that are, among other things—POV, OR, and poorly written—from literally his first day here. He is incorrigible, and his incorrigibility makes him a troll and an open wound on Wikipedia's quality. He has dismissed the views of at least four (probably several more) Ph.D.s in philosophy, including at least two who are specialists and defenders of the "minority" position that he is currently claiming as cover for his incompetence. You want a dispassionate survey of the evidence—I ask you, just look at his edits. Look at the album of evidence here. Look at the expert editors he has repeatedly exasperated and driven away from working on philosophy pages. Ask anybody who knows a whit about philosophy to examine his edits and they will tell you he is an incorrigible crank. Even if you don't know anything about philosophy, just judge him by his appalling abuses of Wikipedia etiquette and policy. Look at his behavior in the Afd, and his multiple floutings of policy. Look at his repeated ignoring and deleting of warnings. Dbuckner is dead solid right that if you can't see that Lucas is a problem editor, then you are being part of the problem by encouraging him. Six months! How much longer — how many more good editors must be outraged to the point of quitting — how much more crap editing of flagship articles does it take? 271828182 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[After edit conflict]
I have to agree. Treating disruptive editors with kid gloves like this simply encourages them, creates severe tensions with editors who are trying to improve articles, and leads to the loss of good editors from Wikipedia. The same thing is happening in many subject areas, though Philosophy is one of the worst: editors who are hasty, make large numbers of very poor-quality edits, are aggressive on Talk pages, and who seem genuinely to have no idea that they're less than perfect. We really do need to work harder at dealing with them (firmly, quickly, but without being unkind). --Mel Etitis (?e? ?t?t??) 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had any direct confrontation with Lucas myself: this is most likely due to my being too new here, and not having much background in philosophy. I have reviewed Lucas'recent editing and find the comments of User:271828182 to be accurate.And I agree that it seems to be another situation that is intolerable for many editors-Lucas has recently demonstrated a belligerent attitude, and wanton disregard for the editing community. Richiar 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been struggling to get the simplest corrections and improvements past Lucas practically since my first day on Wikipedia. Currently I am not attempting to draft anything for the philosophy pages in which he's involved. It's not worth the hassle. KD Tries Again 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)KD

[edit] Ludvikus again

He has begun to make the same snide, sarcastic personal comments about other editors on the philosophy talk page [[27]]. Examples:

"Dbuckner's compaign to characterise philosophy as 'rational enquiry'..."

"I suspect that this campaign - under the banner of Rational Enquiry - is a smoke screen to dismiss Continentals as perpetrators of Nonsense. That, I think, is the view of Mel Etitis - who, by the way, is Wikistalking me at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Here we have another fine example (sarcasm) of rational enquiry, regarding a 'bizarre' observation concerning allegedly myself. Dbuckner, as I said before, I recognize your dedication to philosophy. ...Yet you, Dbuckner are the most gifted socially - if anyone can make this discourse more Rational - it is you who can do it. "

I would urge you to acknowledge his incorrigibility. KD Tries Again 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)KD ... And this is the response I earned, further down the page:

"What is the aim - is it not to get rid of me and my argument? Isn't that precisely the method employed by Stalin and Hitler? With whom one doesn't agree - him one must silence." KD Tries Again 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)KD

[edit] Ludvikus again

He is making life impossible. I have asked several administrators to act. Is this a kind of punishment against the philosophy editors for having criticised your way of dealing with the situation as above? It's not very kind. Dbuckner 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edgeplay

You might find something in these links:

[28], [29], [30], [31]

There really needs to be a health warning on edgeplay, if this can be done without triggering a torrent of "WP is not a How to guide" responses. Please come back if this isn't enough. --Taxwoman 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chidom

Could you do me the favor of closing this one? I stated an opinion in the case already, before I had ever done any SSP closing work, so would prefer not to be the one to close it - though I will if I must. There doesn't seem to be any other administrator interested in SSP - User:MER-C closes a few, but is adamant about not being an admin - yet - on his talk page, otherwise I would have asked him. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't get the time, so I closed it myself. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Saw2-wrist-trap.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Saw2-wrist-trap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learning Communities Article

Dear FT2, First of all, apologies for mis-posting my comments without first starting a new discussion.

Many thanks for your astute comment on the distinctions between learning community and collaborative learning on the Learning Community article. I will address this question in further changes I post in the article, and then we can discuss it further, as appropriate. Many thanks again for a constructive point.

Best wishes, --Ed1vel1 10:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Sports playing surfaces

Thanks a lot for the suggestion and the help :) I must say that "playing surface" makes me think of the substance that the rinks/fields/courts/etc. are made of, not the rinks/fields/courts/etc. themselves. I think Sports fields ("An area reserved for playing a game") comes closest to what I had in mind. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quorn

Thank you for your artful compromise regarding the "incontinent of feces in public!!" quote on Quorn. I believe it works perfectly, and appreciate your effort on that article. Jfiling 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abrahamic Religions

You are essentially suggisting a template for Abrahamic Religions. Personally, I am opposed, because whilethere are historical connectionsbetweenthe three, there are also historical connections between Christianity and European pagan religions, as well as Christianity and Platonicphilosophy; there are also historical connections between Judaism and ancient (pagan) Egyptian and Babylonian religions. In my personal view, the whole idea of "Abrahamic religions" selectively focuses on one meaningless historical/mythical connection (because we know that Abraham did not practice Judaism or Christianity or Islam - if he even existed. Yes, all three religions give a certain importance to Abraham. But all three religions give more importance to Moses. And all three religions give much moreimportance to God). In the process, it obscures what I think are more significant differences between the religions, their views of God, and even their views of Abraham. I think the idea of "Abrahamic religions" is rhetorical and political, and I suspect invented by people who think that by emphasizing a commonality between Judaism Christiantity and Islam they will somehow mysteriously promote peace between adherants of the three religions. I am absolutely certain that this will not happen (peace will occur through an honest acknolwedgement of differences, respect for differences, and dialogue, and it is cynical to suppose there must be some common element like Abraham - the more one believes in that, the less hope there isfor peace between Hindus and Muslims in India, for example!)

This is my personal opinion - you may find others who agree with you of course! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just my opinion ...

Given your last comment on my talk page, here is my suggestion: start a "wikiproject" on comparative religion. First, do a serious improvement drive on the article Comparative religion - I am suspicious of the current categories there, which I suspect do not dso justice to the current scholarship in the field (for example, I am sure many college courses focus just on Judaism and Christianity because these are the two most popular religions in the US - but not because this is how scholars organize religions for purposes of comparison), and create a series template on comparative religion. This would not restrict comparisons to artificial categories like "Abrahamic religions" but allow room for what is really going on in scholarship, for example, the vast body of work that compares 1st Temple Judaism to other ancient Near eastern religions, and Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism to Zoroastrianism and other religions dominant in Babylonia (where Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism developed), as well as articles that compare Christianity to other religions popular during Roman times, like Mithraism. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HeadleyDown

[edit] HeadlyDown?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming) update. Incivility and continued suppression of information An IP mentioned this, and you're the one to contact in this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested by an NLP editor that, based on edit patterns, HD may have moved into the LGAT articles. I want to AGF, for all involved editors. Whats the best procedure for identification? Lsi john 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything come of this? Peace.Lsi john 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NLP (aaaaargh)

Ta very much. I was thinking it's probably just as well we didn't know about the user list. Imagine trying to get that past AB even using RBI. Fainites 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you FT2 but under the following (from your list of users), I couldn't work out the 'several years of rigorous empirical research - see next section' bit.

The British Psychological Society, which lists NLP alongside Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Hypnotherapy as 3 therapies that come under the remit of the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), providing a link for people seeking these therapies. Further, its 4th Annual Continuing Education Program included a key-note speaker talking on NLP (Leanne Harris, University of Hertfordshire). It has also awarded (2004) its key Level B accreditation to a psychometric profile system based upon NLP meta programs, citing "several years of rigorous empirical testing" -- See below (next section).

Nothing seemed to match up.Fainites 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Doctor

The Doctor is quite a mysterious character full of contradictions. Trying to create a fictional bio is futile. Discuss further on the talk page with other Whovians if you're unsatisfied with the current structure of the page. Wiki-newbie 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self disambiguation (very minor)

A looooong time ago you added a definition to Witness (disambiguation) relating to mysticism. I am disambiguating "self" right now and I'm not sure what context belongs to your witness definition. Could you replace it with a different form of "self"? Hoof Hearted 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't think there was a good match either. If you would like to write an article for Self (spirituality), you may. I propose that I skip the Witness page for now and fix all the other dab's for self. When I'm finished, sometime this week, if you haven't written an article I'll just remove the wikilink on the Witness page. No big deal. Thanks. Hoof Hearted 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farmers Insurance (again)

Sorry to bring this mess up again. You were very helpful a month or so ago. I made the mistake of researching some of the criticisms posted without citations that supposedly used state insurance department statistics. Some of the claims were just not true, others were misleading in that they used absolute complaint numbers as opposed to ratios of complaints divided by premium, or cherry-picked years when the numbers were not as good while ignoring other years when even using absolute numbers, Farmers was not the worst by any stretch of the imagination. When I made edits to reflect what I had found, Mr. "Router" reverted them and threatened to have me banned from editing. So I am calling his bluff, so to speak. If you could take a look, I would appreciate it. And if you don't feel that I should edit anymore, then I will abide by that. But I am doing my imperfect best to keep a balanced article with NPOV while eliminating false and misleading statements. I tried to take your advice about finding other subjects to edit as well. My religion and avocations have been pretty well covered. As a hiker with many miles under my belt, would it be Wiki-appropriate to set up articles on hiking specific geographic locations akin to a trail guide? Buzzards39 05:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casino Royale

"Tweaking" is not adding 300 words to a plot. Saying "is next seen" is not as good as "travels to", because you are changing universe. You are going from an in-universe to an out-universe, also, it's just poor wording. Also, Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the film, and we are not supposed to explain every little detail to a reader just so they know exactly how something happened. They can watch the movie for that. The section is not meant to tell the reader what goes on in a movie, it's meant to provide context to the rest of the article, which is about what goes into making the film and the outcome of its release. You are adding minute details that just boggle the plot with verbose wording. You don't need to explain how LeChiffre loses money (e.g. who has bet millions against the market, based on the anticipated fall), just saying he lost money summarizes it all fine. This, "supervised by a Swiss banker to ensure the winnings will be paid to the winner" is irrelevant, because no one attempted to be someone they weren't just to win. You are attempting to overly explain things that don't need it. They can watch the movie to find out how Bond believes Mathis is a double agent. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot for a better understanding of what should be in the plot. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the blanket revert was not an attempt to make it appear that your contributions are not appreciated, only that this plot was trimmed from an excessive length by several editors months back. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot should not explain everything to someone. The whole point is for them to see the movie. You don't need to explain short selling, that is why there is a link to the article. It's all about how you can streamline the plot so that it doesn't become the primary subject of your article. " using security video to identify" is no important. Just saying he identifies his target is enough. The means does not always have to be explained, just the outcome. We don't need to explain LeChiffre lost millions, or even 100 million, just saying "to recoup his losses" says that he lost a lot of money. Who the game is supervised by is extraneous. Bond doesn't know that Mathis is a double agent, he suspects as by his own words, "he hasn't been proven innocent either". He doesn't know, he tells M to continue interrogating him. Don't need to say there was a car crash, it's minute. Try to limit quotes in plots, we have one at the end because it's rather important to the franchise. Don't need to call Mr. White a stranger, as he's been around since the beginning of the film. Again, streamline, don't need to say $100 million every time the money issue comes up. Too much extraneous details about Bond being on the phone, then Vesper is withdrawing the money, then Bond gets to the bank but she has just left. The only thing I can really see that needs to be explained is probably LeChiffre being under pressure from his clients, which can be summed up just like that in the "to recoup sentence". It should probably read, "Under pressure from his clients to recoup his losses,....". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I went through it. It's fine. I didn't revert anything so much as I just reworded a couple sentences. I left a comment on the talk page with a little better explaination, but my edit summary. BIGNOLE (Contact me)

Since you changed the word to "offer", I changed "custody" to "sanctuary", because it didn't sound right to offer custody. They could take him into custody, but when I hear "offer custody" I think he has kids and his wife is giving them to him. I also changed your word "untrustworthiness" to "failure", because it's a bit more descriptive of what happened to Le Chiffre. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what is POC?

Do you no????60.50.13.4 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garment fetishism

Thanks alot for the work you've done to the Garment fetishism article. I'm trying to make people understand why they can't have unattributed stand alone articles and that the unbrella article is a compromise. I know that I can be abbrasive and abrupt but I just don't make exceptions for clear cut policy violations. If you have any ideas on how to best defuse the "redirect" situation I would love to hear about it. Thanks again. NeoFreak 19:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: You are, of course, correct. I've added the article to the third opinion page and hope that some outside input will help. Thanks. NeoFreak 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Approval of stub tag removal

I noticed that you had tagged the article "Comparison of X Window System desktop environments" with an {{expand}}. I have nearly rewritten the article and given it some direction and subsequently removed the {{expand}} tag. I hope you think the requirements you originally had in mind are satisfied now and that you approve of it. I've posted more on the discussion page.

This is your edit of the article I'm referring to.

-- Artagnon 10:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of X Window System desktop environments

I read what you posted on my userpage and I agree with you. We need comparison of performance of differnet libraries, and more quantitative data. Only, I'm not sure what exactly to put in :) However, I'll make an effort to extend the article in that direction.

Yes, one serious drawback with my writing style is that I don't cite references. I just write stright out of my mind and it can be a serious problem. I'll put in an {{Unreferenced}} right away (Done). I will try to keep these points in mind and cite references too.

Thank you for your suggestions.

-- Artagnon 04:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another major modification. Have a look and see if you like it. I'm also awaiting your new suggestions :) -- Artagnon 07:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to each one of your points seperately.

1. A "compatibility and interoperability" section. if the appropriate libraries are loaded, can any desktop do the job of any other? Or are there compatibility and interoperability issues with some? -- I'm not sure this is very relevant as there are few compatibility and interoperability issues today. Sorry.

2. Degree of configurability, "out of box" usability, complexity of setup, expert level needed, stability etc (high/medium/low - it won't have a measurement but surely they can be relatively ranked for things like this and some basis or examples given?) -- Very good suggestion. I was thinking of doing the same thing but the only issue was that the basis for my rating that was missing. It's very subjective, how complex one finds a certain desktop. It's very difficult for anyone to comment that ratpoison is easier to use that GNOME so I'll try to put in ratings that are blatantly clear. The other disadvantage is that I can't rate desktop environments I haven't used on the same scale and I'll leave it to someone else to fill it up. Quoting features in the desktop environment as a basis for the ranking never occured to me. It's also a very good suggestion.

3. Well known pros and cons (if any) -- Umm... you mentioned this in your previous comment, but I think I'll try to merge this with the previous point. Nobody likes to say that their desktop environment has cons, and therefore this section will be very hard to create :)

4. A specific section "KDE vs. GNOME", given these are the most common two desktops provided to newcomers or as defaults? Sample screenshot of each, description how each organizes its desktop (notable differences?), comparison of visible capabilities built into each (multiple desktops, etc) ... -- Excellent suggestion! KDE versus GNOME is very useful to a lot of people. And there are a LOT of references to cite. Just google "KDE versus GNOME" and you'll see what I mean. I don't use elaborate desktop environments anymore so I have to download them first to be able to post screenshots :P

Yes, your list was indeed useful. Thanks :) -- Artagnon 06:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, another major edit in accordance with your suggestions. Thank you for your encouragement and useful comments :) I thought about your "compatibility and interoperability issues" longer and harder. It struck me that there are is quite a lot to write up on it. Just that my memory is rusty about such issues as I haven't worked on an elaborate desktop for a very long time. Anyway, I've started the section with an issue I remember encountering. About the language, I totally agree with you. I was more careful this time while writing and made it a point to re-read what I've written. That doesn't guarantee anything though. The language might still be flawed :P

I might have gone berserk citing references. I'm not sure what's necessary and what's not.

I think the article is moving in the right direction. But I'm a little worried because a significant portion of the article has been written up on just the basis of our conversation. The article will certainly tend to be biased and incomplete. -- Artagnon 07:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject for veterinary medicine

We are looking for participants in a new wikiproject for veterinary medicine, in order to improve existing articles and create new ones. If you are interested, please sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. --Joelmills 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Camonica2.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Camonica2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Selket ^Talk 05:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Third Opinion

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[32]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria [33] or History of Northeast China [34][35] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Labs

The information regarding Silver Labradors (under the main heading of Labrador Retrievers) is predominantly unsubstantiated opinions of blatantly biased non-silver lab breeders and owners, who post their personal anti-Silver Lab nonsense from anti-silver lab sites on the internet. Not only is the section referring to Silver Labs grossly biased, it contains considerable falsehoods and intentional disinformation, If those contributing editors can not substantiate and document: 1) "the original silver lab kennel had Weimers", 2) gene mapping was NOT done on silver labs in the 80s, and 3) Silver Labs are a "scam" (and all like accusations and slurs made throughout this category), then Wikipedia should insist these inflammatory and fraudulent accusations be withdrawn. In short, contributors on this site should be pressed by Wikipedia to either PROVE IT; or REMOVE IT.

By no stretch of the imagination is this site either correct or objective on the topic of Silver Labrador Retrievers. More importantly, when editing is done to this site to correct the incorrect allegations and accusations made by the anti-silver factions, this site editor (Sarrandúin ) removes the corrections in accordance with her own bias regarding Silver Labs (see site history as well as her remarks).

Because this site editor is incapable of editing for objectivity instead of her bias -- or even allowing both sides of the controversy on the site -- I request another editor be assigned to this site. If this editor is so delusional she believes she is being objective on the topic of silver labs, then the topic of what information is posted under the heading of Silver Labs should be settled by Wikipedia's Arbitration Board.

Dean Crist

Crist Culo Kennels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.71.66 (talk • contribs) 23:02, June 3, 2007

[edit] HeadleyDown, DDP etc

[edit] Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy et al

Just to let you know your tag has been removed twice from the DDP page. I have replaced it twice and advised them to discuss it with you. Fainites 16:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HeadleyDown?

Hi FT2

There's been a lot of activity from a tendentious editor - Jeffrire ([[36]]), and I'm beginning to wonder if he might fit the profile of a HeadleyDown puppet.

Have you got moment to look at the on-going dispute on the Landmark Education Talk page [[37]], or the MedCab mediation process [[38]].

He seems to be working in collaboration to some degree with user:EstherRice, user:Smee and user:Pedant17.

Thanks. DaveApter 10:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Headley Again

Could you check out Steve B110 please. He's being very pro-NLP on the NLP page but unconstructive in editing. He's now trying to make it look on the talkpage as if there's an agreement between himself, Comaze and myself to making the article more 'positive' and that we have been doing just that. He's also followed Comaze onto the Pseudoscience talkpage (like NewtonSpeed, just been blocked as Headley) and is again being unconstructive in editing and offering 'support' for Comaze on the talkpage as if they were 'best mates' whilst being very offensive to the other editors. I suspect this is just a different way of trying to embarrass and attack Comaze. (Note that in his final edit on the COI NewtonSpeed also falsely accused me of removing critical references to NLP).Fainites 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FT2. Quick work! Fainites 19:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template_talk:Unreferenced#Seeking_consensus_on_warning_text

Hi, just saw your comments and changes at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Seeking_consensus_on_warning_text, Unfortunately both changes are controversial. Adequetely has a long history of attempted insertions and deletions. Please see my comment and request for reversion your of changes. Jeepday (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! GDallimore (Talk) 09:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived December 17 2007 (to Nov. 20 2007)

[edit] AFD/DRV related

[edit] Thanks...

...for closing out the Shane Hagadorn AfD, things did get rather complicted and at least three or four SPA-type accounts have been spamming the Pro-Wrestling AfD debates hoping to keep pages which should have been deleted at the PROD stage. And that one got especially tangled, thanks for sorting it out. Darrenhusted 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

The lengthy explanation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is The Life (album) was a good thing and you deserve a bit of recognition for making a tough decision. Even though my recommended course of action (weak keep) was not what occurred, I applaud your work. — Scientizzle 07:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. People put a lot of effort, and often invest a chunk of their "feel good", into new articles. When a new article's created in good faith, it seems wrong to delete or keep it without leaving those involved a good rationale why that decision was made. I would want that too if it was an AFD I cared about.

Other good reasons come to mind: a good explanation also helps clarify to editors what was missing in an article or AFD post and how policies work in practice, and hence encourages clearer thinking - always a good thing :) Administrators are just as answerable to policy and neutrality as any other editor, and their decisions should be able to withstand fair scrutiny. Last, a good explanation reduces antagonism and bad faith wikistress, by making clear why. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Hill influences and trivia (2nd nomination)

Just to inform you I reverted your change of template here, per the instructions on the template. You started the close preceedings over an hour ago, and left them incomplete. DarkSaber2k 11:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] :) [== ANI comment on AFD:Doctor of Chiropractic]

[39] Viridae ^Talk 00:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy AfD explanations

Although I think your long AfD explanations are generally good (from what I've seen), the Silent Hill one seemed awfully long... do you think that much explanation was really necessary? Andre (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV (Shane Hagadorn)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shane Hagadorn. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--Oakshade 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Hill influences and trivia

Hi FT2, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Hill influences and trivia (2nd nomination), this article is ready for deletion. I've moved over everything that had a direct reference, the rest is original research and/or mind-numbing trivia. Thanks, Marašmusïne_Talk 07:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Psycho: Music from the Controversial Motion Picture

FT2: I closed the AfD as a Keep based on both consensus and the issue regarding the Huey Lewis controversy. I was able to easily find sourcing for this issue (see here and here) which is clearly non-trivial and from reliable sources. This would satisfy the letter of WP:N. Sadly, neither WP:MUSIC nor WPP:MUSIC deal specifically with criteria for the notability of compliation albums, and WP:MUSTARD states only that albums should only be judged on a "case-by-case basis". Without anything else to guide us here, it'd default back to WP:N, which seems satisfied.

My biggest error here was assuming that the !voting editors were going to add the sources for the Huey Lewis bit. I will do so right now. If you still feel that this should be addressed by WP:DRV, by all means bring it up there. I hope, however, this has cleared things up.

Let me know if you have any other concerns. Cheers, Caknuck 04:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me preface everything by saying that you've made several valid points. I have no emotional investment in the article, and could care less whether or not it was merged with the main article for the film. I just want to make it known that I wasn't being cavalier about closing out the AfD, and that some careful thought went into it. That being said...

The dispute's notability has been established by two things:

It was covered by mainstream media like Rolling Stone and Salon.
The misconception that Lewis pulled the song because of the film's violent content still persists. Take the AMG review, which still reads: "Just before the disc's release, Huey Lewis demanded that his "Hip to Be Square" be pulled from the album -- he was offended by the film's subject matter."

As far as the album's article, I think it could probably stand on its own with some expansion. (And as general tendencies go, I'm a deletionist...) For instance, there are remixes of several notable songs -- most importantly "In The Air Tonight" -- which may not appear elsewhere. (I'll need to do some digging to verify this.)

Again, I have no objection to you either initiating an article merge or forwarding this to WP:DRV. Please let me know if you do. Thanks, Caknuck 05:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Puerto Ricans in NASA

I accept your logic behind the AfD and appreciate that you created User:Marine 69-71/Puerto Ricans in NASA, that was very nice of you and I thank you for that. I know that some of Wikipedia's Puerto Rican community may feel discourage about the outcome because of the pride, but I'll handle that. I will encourage them to look for an alternate soultion. As a matter of fact I myself have started writting articles about the more notable Puerto Rican scientists in NASA. Tony the Marine 19:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasant Ridge Chili

Although I weakly took the other side on the AfD, that was a solid, well-reasoned close. Not like you need validation with your body of edits, but keep up the great work. :) youngamerican (wtf?) 20:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pleasant Ridge Chili. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mind meal 02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] La Martiniere

Thank you for your recent close of that TfD. I was most pleased with your measured approach to its close, and i think coming to the right conclusion. Cheers. Twenty Years 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can i prod the song template? because of the TfD. Twenty Years 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] La Martiniere

Cheers for all of your help with the template. The creator has said that if i can gain consesnsus on the talk page, he will agree to speedy them. Can you make a comment here when you get a chance. Cheers. Once again, thanks for all your help. Twenty Years 09:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasant Ridge Chili

Since you are adamant about bringing up WP:NOT, without delving into which part of WP:NOT the article violated, I am asking you to explain your argument. WP:NOT provides all examples that have established a consensus, and you have not pointed to which part of the policy Pleasant Ridge Chili supposedly violated. A few administrators arguing to delete something without being backed by the very policy they cite is not consensus. So please carefully look over WP:NOT, find the area(s) my article violated, and then post that at the deletion review. "Indiscriminate collection of information" is a summary of the entire page, and also a subheading within. It is not, in and of itself, an argument for deletion unless an example from that policy is used to demonstrate just how an article is an indiscriminate collection of information. Surely you understand this? (Mind meal 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

(Note for archive and for own ref: query relates to an AFD "delete" closure for dubious notability; later taken to DRV and endorsed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rescue template

Greetings, thankyou for your assitance and words of wisdom on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_24#Template:Rescue. Although personally I believe it should be left on the article pages, I have worked on a new template to be placed on the AfD page as you suggested. Please view the template here, and it in action here. If I could ask you to place your comments on the template here to keep it all in one place? Thankyou for your time. Fosnez 11:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just regarding the usage on article pages, and I'm sorry if I am harping on about it, but I can understand your position on because of it being a project tag that it can't be used on article pages. Here is an example of it being used well, and here is one of it not (far to many tags on that page, interestingly Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia_namespace seems to suggest all the cleanup tags should be on the talk page as well?). My question is, if it were to become an "official" wikipedia tag, that is "owned" by the community, but "served" but the ARS, could we continue to place it, in a rewitten form, on the article page. I know this next statement might sound self serving, but having it on the article page is where the ARS got most of it's members from (from them noticing it on the article page, it's certainly how I found out about them) and having more people fixing articles can never be a bad thing IMHO. I am not the only one that feel like this and as I said before, as this is only to be placed on articles that are up for deletion in five days anyway, where is the harm? - Fosnez 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I think you've slightly got the wrong idea, though I can see where you're coming from. I closed the TFD on the basis not of my own opinion, but on the basis that both policy, practice, and around 2/3 of the discussion's participants who expressed a view, all concurred that the article was the wrong place for it. The participants all saw the reasoning you have given, but even so that was the view, and it's fairly well supported by existing communal agreement too.

There's no real difference between an "official" and "unofficial" tag. It's mostly down to how widely adopted it becomes. If many people use it, it will gradually become seen as a part of how things work. If not it'll be seen as a tag used by a small group trying to do their own bit to help. Either way the same policies would probably apply. The point is, most people who'd research to improve an article would likely click through on the AFD header anyway. The people you're hoping to reach are the ones who might express a view, and therefore care enough to perhaps improve it. I have made one other suggestion on the project talk page which I see no problem with, but you'd need to get the agreement of the folks at AFD since it would involve minor editing to the AFD template.

If you want, then the way to present it is not as a quirky project or a "we need it". Project templates are much more based on what helps to encourage good process and conduct and thus benefit the encyclopedia. So what matters is much more that there is a legitimate case following the TFD, that this is what deletion policy says, but it's often not clear to readers of the AFD template. If it were able to be noted in the existing template that improvement is sought, perhaps more editors would be interested in doing so.

I don't know how it'd be received, but that's my thoughts for the few minutes I'm around.

Hope this helps! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craigslist killing

Thank you for resolving and judging fairly on the Craigslist killing deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigslist Killing -- You also thankfully deleted the associated "Katherine Ann Olson" page but you forgot another one! Michael John Anderson was the attacker and the page was created by the same user who created both the other two. As a result I believe you have grounds to immediately delete that one as well since it is also directly associated with the discussion. If you could please do so as soon as possible. .:DavuMaya:. 04:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Checked and agreed - thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Images page

Your welcome. I just found it weird that the page had survived the time that it did. Cheers, Lex⁹⁴ ^Talk ^{Contributions} ^{Guest Book} 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Esskater11/Dirty images

In light of the prior discussion at WP:AN, I'm not convince, as you've asserted, that this page wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept at MfD. I have thus restored it and nominated it for discussion there. Please feel welcome to express your opinion on the MfD page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very nicely put...

I just wanted to stop by and let you know that I thought your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Esskater11/Dirty images was very well put. Thanks for saying it better than I ever could :) --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 16:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment Therapy / DPeterson / AWeidman

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence size

Hi FT2. Your evidence in the Attachment Therapy request for arbitration is 3000+ words according to my word processor. Please trim it to at most 1500, and better yet 1000, to comply with the 1000 word limit for evidence. Thank you. Picaroon (Talk) 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment therapy

There's an update: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re:_AWeidman.2C_RalphLender.2C_DPeterson.2C_JohnsenRon.2C_SamDavidson.2C_MarkWood.2C_JonesRD_-_admin_self-check Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on my talk page [+ email]

were these offered as an administrator? DPeterson^talk 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I received some information that I felt worthy of posting on the Admin Notice Board regarding your conduct. Pls see that page. DPeterson^talk 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The thread is (here). Peace.Lsi john 13:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(Reference: link for this post)

[edit] DPeterson Block

DPeterson was blocked for that edit at 18.19. RalphLender reinserted the identical passage at 18.43. [40]Fainites ^barley 19:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Was already editing on that one too. But it'll have to wait a bit. I have an appointment for an hour. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! Real Life? Fainites ^barley 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, thanks, but I had already spotted that, and only noticed your message when I went to check Ralph's block log to determine if he had been blocked previously for similar grounds. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AT

Here [41] at 22.24 and here [42]at 2.04, reinserting the same or similar edit on ACT. Here at 2.07[43]stating restoring material that was added with sources and verificable citations. No material had been deleted; only added to improve article in the edit summary when in fact a sentence and two substantial passages were deleted.Fainites ^barley 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked him to edit in compliance with policy, once more, already. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks from me, too, for the connect and all your careful work.Jean Mercer 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was too quick - but I never hold deletions against people unless they're obvious vandals. Deb 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email account

Sure. Done. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I followed the linked and validated it yesterday. Perhaps give it another day. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I can email. What makes you think it isn't validated? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fixed. Try now. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 09:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Send what you like. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal communication

Oh, you are quite correct. I meant to go into more detail on the talk page once I was done with my current to-do, but forgot all about it. I'll be going to go fetch my references and go explain why I removed the paragraph on the talk page sometime later tonight. — Coren ^(talk) 00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for third opinion (moved from user page)

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[44]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria [45] or History of Northeast China [46][47] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved by Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) from user page at 23:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC). Originally written by Cydevil38

[edit] Away

Away from Thurs 12 - Sun 15 July. Any matters needing attention will be seen on return FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching

Hi,

I'm glad to see you are interested in developing your wiki-knowhow by seeing admin coaching. Without any prior judgement whether you are ready or not to seek others views on adminship, it is always good to see others aiming to improve themselves. If you are looking for occasional hints and tips on your editing, I would be glad to give you some to-the-point feedback and pointers, and a helping hand for a while.

(Of course what you do with them, and how others view your work, will ultimately be down to you!)

If you're interested, you'll want as a first step to set yourself up with an email account, and then let me know. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} thanks for the offer. I always appreciate input on my editing and would gladly welcome any and all help in this venue. With regards to applying for adminship, I’m torn between two views. The first, is that I feel I could contribute more on the basic clean-up duties and in some circumstances “Dispute Resolution”. However, the Responsibilities associated with the privileges of adminship is also a burden that effects what I enjoy the most about Wikipedia the ability to just edit. So, will see. In the mean time, please feel free to offer any advice. It will be appreciated. Have a great day. .ShoesssS ^Talk

Ps…in the mean time I did take your advice and activated my email. .ShoesssS ^Talk

[edit] Email

Hi FT2. I've created an email to receive messages as you requested, but I haven't received anything from you beyond "hello" so I'm a little confused. I assume you're pretty busy. Anyway, post a message on my talk page when you have sent me something. I don't check that account usually. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my reply here in case there was more to add, but I don't particularly want to make my e-mail address available to anyone on wikipedia, was there a particular reason for asking me to do so? DarkSaber2k 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(Replied on my talk page) DarkSaber2k 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reason for discussion:

I'm looking at your edit history, and considering nominating you for adminship. There are many strikingly good points, not least a suitably wide range of experience and competent involvement in various areas, and a strongly policy-oriented approach to editing. Wikipedia policy suggests that editors should edit as administrators, rather than create an artificial divide; I see evidence of that in your editing history too.

The one slight issue I've seen so far is a tendency to be a little too abrupt in language use with the few editors who just don't get the point. However, I've checked, and your conduct in the actual discussions doesn't seem abusive; backing this, the couple of complaints raised by others that I have found, were in fact related to quite civil and policy-based discussion. Doubtless if RfA was proposed, this side would be inspected in more depth, which could go either way. (Or, obviously, if it ceased to be present then it would cease to be an issue too.) I don't know if there are other issues, but if so, I didn't notice them in the review I undertook.

If you would like to discuss this, either here or via email, you have access to both. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Life line

Life line, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Life line satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life line and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Life line during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eliz81 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Life line

That's so weird, since I use TWINKLE for xfd... thanks for letting me know, I'll put the template in manually! Eliz81 23:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am not Iterator2n

Why did you think I was? --Jonathan Stray 03:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Nice to meet you. I have always had a serious interest in Wikipedia and more recently in its community too, as I am in the process of research for what I hope will someday be a popular book on popular epistemology, i.e. how people can decide if claims or ideas are true or not. --Jonathan Stray 03:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, that was sort of the idea. Aside from having a personal interest in psychotherapy, I chose to get involved in NLP because I wanted to understand how finding consensus might work in really contentious rational skepticism style cases. I'm also volunteering to mediate Food irradiation for that reason ;) --Jonathan Stray 03:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It Was Only Created For... in WP:ATA

Hi there, you added this section to WP:ATA. I'm wonder if you would mind if it was merged with WP:RUBBISH - they seem to have the same intended spirit and it would help cut down an increasingly long essay. Thanks -Halo 02:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathrash

That really depends upon how one goes about gettign a page salted? Will it require a new AfD or can it be done through speedy? Thankyou for the notice. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do you know what you are talking about?

Morton Brilliant in Georgia state (regional) politics was a completely separate issue from the congressional staffers in Washington, D.C. I also took out your statement that implied that any congressional staffers were fired. And a suggestion: this list of controversies should probably just provide careful one-liners that exist primarily just to refer to the corresponding Wikipedia article and no footnotes: if footnotes are useful, then they belong back in their corresponding article.--76.203.48.177 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant definitely did resign, with Cox announcing it publicly because she had made a public stand against negative campaigning. We do not know if anyone got fired in the congressional staffer incident(s). They both fall under the category of "politics and Wikipedia", but they are separate incidents.--76.203.48.177 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy/Email

Had a chance to look over your policy proposal, but since I was doing it in class, I didn't have much of a chance to comment. I will at some point soon, really. And I've enabled my email now =) ♠P M C♠ 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chidiac

[edit] AfD closure of Anthony Chidiac

Thanks for providing a close to the discussion. It is clear from your closing comments that you spent time considering the discussion. I appreciate your doing that. I was afraid that the closing admin would give a one-line close statement... instead we get this! Thanks a lot for taking the time to spell it out. -- Ben 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Deletion of Anthony Chidiac

Hi FT2, I thank you for the time in reviewing this article. Though I believe your comments seem valid, they do not allow for the fact that I put the article up as a stub and within hours it was nominated for an AfD, without due process of "assuming good faith". I and others were going to contribute to make the article worthy of quality that meets wikipedias standards which, by the way, is a constantly moving chalkline, when it went down the AfD road. I don't think that is fair. I have been following the advice given by other admins and people involved in the first write and believed I conformed to all rules. It is therefore impossible to make such a judgement of delete without in fact seeing how the article got expanded. Could you please explain to me how when I followed a consensus of opinion that I keep getting my efforts shot down in giving it a go? I feel very disheartened by this result, without due process of expanding article before being challenged in this way. Please help me with this as the person is notable and needs to be stubbed in order for others to work on and expand without such "last resort" process. Thanks in advance for your thoughts on process itself, which is what annoys me the most about such. PS - For the complete BIO that was prevously deleted, please go [here] I only mentioned two of the many things this guy has done, and needed to cite the rest of the material before adding it. I believe that is what is called a quality article. Please comment on original article. Thanks!--T3Smile 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

And thanks for the note. I'll try to explain; I don't know it it will be what you hoped to hear, but I'll do the best I can.

This relates to a biographical article on its second AFD. It had been through one AFD; its creators knew some of its flaws from that and rewrote it. The problem is basically this. Articles need to reach a certain quality to endure in article space. The article did not have "hours till marked for deletion; in fact you used the "hangon"template and the speedy notice was removed. It then had around 6 more days to be worked on, before being submitted for full discussion at AFD at which point it was actually a good size biography.

It was then allowed not the usual five days at AFD, but an unusual full 7 days to be assessed. During this time flaws of notability were pointed out but not apparently able to be fixed. The article was not deleted as being a stub; in fact it was not a stub at that point, it had a picture, templates, several good size paragraphs, some dozen links. The problem was that at AFD it transpired the view of the community was that the subject was by evidence, and practice, non notable in encyclopedic terms. Of all the extra ways to show notability you say you might have added, in 2 weeks not one significant source of notability ultimately was.

It was for this reason, and not "stub-ness", that it was removed. It did not in fact influence the final decision that the article was written with alleged COI and puppetry (both unexamined). In the end, all the writing in the world did not change the fact that no genuine notability was identified second time around, as none had been the first time it was deleted at AFD in July, even despite extra time being available. This is a routine AFD decision.

This is completely different than stub/nonstub: a one line stub saying "The Airbus A380 is the largest passenger jet in the world" would (probably) be notable and endure. The problem is, even a 1 line stub subject must be notabile, and this was a full bio article size and (as assessed) did not.

If you need more time, then your best bet is to create the article in your user space, thus: User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac for development (if you want the old text back let me know), and when you consider it ready, then and only then page move it into its correct location. Others can edit it in your user space if you want them too.

I hope this helps, let me know if you need any more information on any aspect.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi FT2, In a hazy cloud called the internet and a hazier site called wikipedia you do make perfect sense of it all. It is just that I am deathly afraid to put the article User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac up into mainspace in its entirely for fear of scorn, salting, and all other kinds of debate that don't concentrate on the shortcomings of the article and add no opinion as to how to improve it. My userspace article has had several revisions placed, but, as I said, being really afraid to move this article in my userspace into mainspace was the reason why I stubbed it. I think the body of work in the userspace article gets the WP:BIO across the line, but the problem will then be citable sources, and the main source has been chidiac himself and his work colleagues in my interviews and of radio and TV interviews, some of which are on YouTube and linked to article. I mean, we can place a "lacks sources" banner on top of the mainspace article which would be good, but I am wanting to create a "Biography without holes" - ie a quality one. I would appreciate your thoughts on the userspace article and where else it may lack. This article is just about haunting me as it was my first go at a major piece, and I am stubborn sometimes and can't see why others don't think some little aussie guy is notable enough to have made a significant contribution in what you may or may not have in your living room today. Your time in reading the User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac article will be most appreciated and well regarded. Looking forward to your razor sharp thoughts on such.--T3Smile 07:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure :) The only thing is, be sure to check the subject really is notable. If others don't see evidence they are, then that's going to be that no matter how skilled your writing. A big problem is that we do not in fact write about everythiung here, but only those things that "reliable sources" have already taken significant notice of. A person discussing themselves, or a person being interviewed by a TV program, may not in fact be enough to make that decision. Instead of a full article, why don't you try and think through in bullet points, the evidence and reasons that you think he's notable? I'll be glad to look at them for you. The only thing is, I'd need you to understand and accept that 1/ it's only one person's opinion and others may differ, 2/ I might say 'probably not'. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: See User talk:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac for a review. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ft2, where were you when I first started here on the subject? You are a godsend! All I and others asked for at the start of the first AfD was some clear points to work on, and nobody gave them to me or others collaborating on the piece. I'll spend time reviewing the piece on your comments and I am really grateful for giving me such clear direction on this piece. Would you mind if I reviewed the piece User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac and asked you if you felt its was ready for mainspace in the near future? How can I be "adopted" by you on wikipedia? ta T--T3Smile 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi FT2, I have listed the userspace article in Deletion review The funniest thing about it is that I agree with the previous two deletions one by you and one by the 1st AfD, yet I am afraid to post the rewritten bio in my userspace for fear of scorn, salting, and whatever else evil lurks on the dark side :). I dearly would like this "tenant" to move out of my userspace. I have followed your recommendations but simply cannot in such a short time provide the citations aside from the subject himself and his colleagues. I found that once the article in full was on mainspace in round one of the AfD, it bought people out of the woodwork and with that, the articles, media, and citations I was looking for that failed the article in round one. Could you please keep my rationality in check in this process, and others too? If you think you could cut me some slack with the article I can assure you that once in mainspace it will be transformed by way of others known to this guy clarifying it all further and providing the media articles that reference the bio. Thanks in advance for your positivity on my quest. I tend to dwell on things that give me roadblocks! Apologies for that :) T--T3Smile 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Intervene

Dear FT2, I note that you have been the most informative and neutral admin on the subject of an article written about me - Anthony Chidiac. Firstly, thank you for doing such. It is very important to me to keep factuality about the proposition of inclusion into wikipedia, if in fact I pass such notability greater than a racehorse that is of good breed that is covered by wikipedia.

I am writing to you today in the hope that you will be able to action the cease and desist of behaviour by a group of people keen to discredit and defame my name by taking discrediting and derogatory actions against others that have an interest in writing about me as a subject of the encyclopedia. I understand the application for inclusion of an article about me here has been spawn by one person and her lecturer User:T3Smile User:Rdpaperclip whom one is a novice and inexperienced, and the other a lecturer. I forgive the wikipedia novice and her teacher for such editing process failures, but when she is being bombarded by a "bully" war and my name is implicated as the motivation for this unfortunate series of untrue allegations, that I would noted such as defamation "by proxy" in that the untrue allegations about ones identity is published on a public site (as opposed to "chat" in a chatroom (My LA Lawyer can quote you laws on it). If you believe the actions of these initiators, I apparently am of aboriginal origin, a lecturer, and the subject of article at the same time - thats the way this group of people are trying to portray it. I believe such behaviour is not tolerated in both Australia and the United States in any form of public communication, especially when there could be a measure of quantifiable loss associated with such by a person or persons.

If you cannot sort out this I am afraid I will have to as a last resort, insigate legal action in both the US and Australia on the offending persons and wikipedia, and that will not be in the spirit of this website nor the thousands of others that do in fact comply with its rules for publishing, and K.I.S.S. I have, and will allow User:T3Smile and her teacher to work on an article that meets or exceeds the quality standards set here on wikipedia and its guidelines, if in fact my career qualifies for such inclusion. This warring via "investigative efforts" by people with too much time on their hands needs to stop as I have been innocently been dragged into the crossfire, and privacy breaches will also be of concern to me and noted by my legal representatives in such case.

Thank you for you thoughts to sort out this "bully" war on the two people trying to contribute here to a biography on my career. Please e-mail me or message me directly with your take on resolving this issue that impacts on my good name and career. I believe you have a penchant for sorting out messes. I suggest you wear a bulletproof vest for this one. Sincerely, --Achidiac 11:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am drafting a response to this and will post shortly. Please in the meantime - request to others, do not post for now, in response to the above. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(done) [link]

This is probably the most comprehensive and balanced dispute resolution I've ever read on Wikipedia. As an uninvolved observer of the Chidiac articles and AfD's, thanks for your considerable efforts in bringing what has been a needlessly contentious issue to a well-reasoned close. Euryalus 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SSP

F.Y.I. - I went through the posts of the SSPs at SSP and revised as necessary. He/they wasted a lot of time for others, but presently there are no lasting effects. -- Jreferee t/c 17:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query at WP:V

[edit] I wrote this

I wrote this response before you removed the section, so I might as well put it somewhere.

In response to this:

(ec)I consider a self published source only acceptable to verify non-controversial claims, such as those that don't need to be cited anyways. The verifiability content applies to articles only, not discussions. Referring to existing debates on Wikipedia to make a point in a discussion is fine, but Wikipedia should never refer to itself as a source in articles. Until (1 == 2) 01:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your query

Hi FT, I see you removed your query from V. I had already answered it and got an edit conflict, so I'll post it here in case it's helpful.

There are two main issues: reliability and notability. With the NPOV example you give above, the Wikipedia policy page would be regarded as a (probably self-published) primary source, and it's fine to use primary sources so long as you stick only to describing what they say, without analysis. So you could use the NPOV policy as a source in an article about Wikipedia. But you then have to ask yourself why you can't find a secondary source. If no reliable secondary source has seen fit to mention the NPOV policy, is it something we should bother mentioning? That's where the issue of notability kicks in. It's always better to use secondary sources, because then we know that what we're writing about is something other people have expressed views on too, and not simply something we personally find interesting — which can lead to original research when we pick and choose primary sources we happen to like, rather than the ones secondary sources have written about.

Does this help to answer your question? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to WP:BAN

Greetings. Excellent attitude of boldness! However, I have restored an earlier version of the policy, I want to discuss the changes you made before they become policy. The changes are still in the history and can be restored, if consensus is achieved. I have commented at WT:BAN. Cheers! Navou ^banter 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Wondered what happened with wb:don't be a fanatic and wondered if you would like to read over an article i am doing a lot of work to to help me out. it is a little lonely over there you see North East Wales Institute Hope i don't get vandalism asking this is it possible to just loose the name after this? Anyway, just an ask and a wonder. Well done with your work on that! Delighted eyes 02:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

REVIEW CARRIED OUT, ITEM DISCUSSED ELSEWHERE

[edit] New threads

please dont start a new thread on a talk page (HoW) when a thread has been opened on the same issue as the last comment, its disrespectful to my thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Its on the history of wikipedia talk page [48]. I made a thread about it right above yours, perhaps you didnt see me? SqueakBox 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, and yes we do have a disagreement that has nothing to do with this so lets keep discussing, SqueakBox 23:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi, wanted to thank you for your help, it is appreciated and thanks for letting me know your edit summary that was helpful to. I will go have a look at what you have suggested and keep at it. I had a look at a related afd and decided it really should be kept just improved as many student uni branchs have done a lot for out cause and many unis have a nus page. with love Delighted eyes 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ze RfA

Thanks for the genuinely constructive comment on my RfA. Those are few and far between and, as far as I am concerned, the point of the exercise. I was sorta hoping more of the opposes would have visibly examined my contributions and commented on them; they turned out to be rather superficial (admitedly, many of the supports were just as superficial).

I'm going to be looking into the areas you have suggested. I didn't even know about WP:3O! I fear I'm never going to be much of a mainspace editor— but that will never prevent me from doing the less glamorous work. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 02:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

for your copyedits in Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. I wonder if you may want to take a look at Biopsychiatry controversy? —Cesar Tort 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, the problem is that I am going on a long trip this Friday and don't like much to wikiedit in internet cafes. I may be available today and Thursday but then I will take a wikibreak. —Cesar Tort 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If that seemed messy for you, you will really, really love this!:

Controversy about ADHD

—Cesar Tort 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELP!

HELP! User:H has left Wikipedia and his talk page is bloked. Please unblock it! Temporarily (or permanently) join the Wikipedia Crisis Center and help us out!

Defender 911 (Leave a message!)

Comander of the Wikipedia Crisis Center.

16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will you please look?

Will you please look at Journalism scandals and my adding of Matt Sanchez Link as a scandal. Please read my notes in talk too. The article is not balanced. I do not want to get in trouble for 'warring' again. Thanks. Bmedley Sutler 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note - I have limited net connectivity from now until the end of this weekend (20-21 Aug). Messages left here will be responded to but this may take longer than usual. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journalistic scandals article

Thank you for your work on the article. I have been working on the 'list' article. There are two issues. The first one is that there is one non-USA section on Sky News. James Furlong What to do with it? The second issue is this. IMO an issue only becomes a 'scandal' when it is talked about by multiple MSM sources, and that can include Fox, if it got several coverages. Like Jayson Blair or James Frey (although he was a book writer, not news). If something is only discussed in The Nation and Daily Kos, or Human Events and the Hot Air Blog, its not a 'scandal', IMO. What do you think? IMO about half of the entries there aren't big enough to be called 'scandals'. Plus it needs Robert Novak and Judith Miller and a few more. •smedley?butler• 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ASF

I replied here. You're welcome to remove the redirect link and delete the redirect page if you believe it's useless to have it. I don't however think it causes any harm to have those section redirects (there are several others in WP:NPOV alone), nor that the section is in need of rewriting, only that it is an important autonomous concept within NPOV and that a section redirect would help for quick reference when this particular principle ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves") is being ignored, as happens quite frequently I'm afraid. —AldeBaer 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied again. What did you mean we should do with that list you proposed (which I think is a good idea btw)? Should we extend the ASF section with it? —AldeBaer 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Default assumption

Commenting on your comments here.... In the case of anonymous IPs (who, according to Jimbo himself, do not have the same civil rights as registered users) the threshold for AGF should be set lower. Demand (on the talk page or in the edit summary) that each edit be accompanied by referenced documentation or those edits will by default assumed to be vandalism and reverted on sight. Quite simple and it works. -- Fyslee/talk 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software spec

Thanks for the spec, hopefully I can have a beta working soon. Shadow1 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rambutan / Phil Sandifer

[edit] You deserve a barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For such an excellent effort to resolve a difficult dispute and help everyone move on, I award you the barnstar of peace. Melsaran (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here here! Thanks!--Rambutan (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rambutan

And he's immediately back to jumping into raging disputes and targetting me directly: [49].

Please reconsider your unblock. Phil Sandifer 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid an anti-consensus BLP vio, and Phil immediately reverted it without explanation or dialogue. I'm leaving well alone now - Judd can deal with it himself.--Rambutan (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am reading and will comment in a bit. I have no opinion at this moment, having not read. But note that I do not wheel war. If there is a problem, I have stated I have no objections to appropriate action by others. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read it; it seems fair. Thanks for all your time.--Rambutan (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rambutan

Hi, FT2 - I noticed that you were involved with the unblock of Rambutan (talk · contribs), who I had my first interaction with a couple of days ago. I just now read your review in his talk archive...good job, by the way, I totally agreed with your analysis after looking into the history. However, it seems some of the problems that were highlighted before are still ongoing - I ran into this situation because I watch User talk:Blofeld of SPECTRE. Rambutan was making some deletion nominations of articles on Tibetan communities that Ernst was creating. I understand it was possibly an honest mistake, but Rambutan wouldn't withdraw the noms even after WP:OUTCOMES was pointed out to him. Ernst's response was somewhat prickly, but he attempted to mend fences, however, his good-faith messages have been removed with "reverting vandalism" edit summaries and messages that he's "blacklisted" so far as Rambutan is concerned. Ernst has now stepped away from the situation, which I think is a wise move.

Since you have experience with the user, I was hoping you might look at things, and offer advice on whether it's time to elevate this to an RfC or something similar, given the lengthy block log and ongoing issues. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I leave it in your capable hands. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Just to let you know that I have filed an RfC on Phil Sandifer; it concerns his disputes with you. It's worth reading it.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be very clear, and re-read if needed. As best I can tell at this point, Phil doesn't have a "dispute" with me nor I with him. I have reverted one of his blocks and explained why, and declined to agree with another. Please do not put a dispute you have, or an RFC you raise, in any way as being "my" dispute unless I have engaged in it very significantly, and on one specific "side". It would be something I'd like you not to do. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your email :-) Just for the public record, he disputed your unblock of me, and the RfC process includes criticism of "all involved editors". Your are on the periphery of the dispute, and I thought it would be polite to notify you.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 09:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that the RfC in question has been deleted, with the nominator withdrawing it over concerns that Phil Sandifer "has lots of friends" and "will do anything to win." I'm not passing on the truthfulness of any of that, but I worry that, much as when a user wants to delete his own work for bad cause (rather than good cause), I think this RfC shouldn't be deleted because of the filer's felling of intimidation, whether warranted or not. I wanted to contribute my thoughts. Here is the outsider's view I was working on. It is essentially complete in the arguments made about Sandifer, but I still need to work on the section about the other(s) involved in this situation, as well as take the time to find supporting diffs & links. --Ssbohio 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Ssbohio - minimized as very long

Note: This set of concerns was discussed by email, and all's good; minimized to cut length of talk page.

Outside view by Ssbohio

Phil Sandifer continues his pattern and practice of using his admin authority to gain the edge in content disputes in which he is involved. He has previously destroyed months of hard work by myself and others at Justin Berry, claiming BLP violations but never explaining what they were, reducing the article to one readin "Justin Berry is a person." Sandifer then went on to propose that the article be deleted for its lack of content, later admitting that doing so was "a tad WP:POINTy." His unsupported accusations of BLP violation were judged insufficient, and Will Beback reverted his deletion of content & history from the article. But, Sandifer returned, again making the same kind of deletion, again refusing to support his action or explain the purported BLP violation. He has displayed no willingness to give an explanation, to entertain opposing points of view (even deleting complaints from his talk page), or to compromise on the deletions he made. His approach is that us ordinary Wikipedians should accept the judgment of our "betters" without question. That is not, in any realm of imagination, the Wiki way.

I find it particularly ironic that, by all appearances in this case, Sandifer has taken steps to thwart another admin's enforcement of BLP. The champion of broad interpretation when it comes to biographies of living persons has, in this case, struck out in the opposite direction, arguing against its enforcement.

His apparent hypocrisy is of concern here because Sandifer wields exceptional authority which cannot be countered by the actions of ordinary editors and because he continually refuses to justify or in cases even discuss his administrative actions. In this case, he has excised criticism & evidence of his intemperance presented by an anonymous editor from his talk page, then applied semi-protection to the page to prevent its reintroduction. I cannot imagine a clearer conflict of interest than using one's administrative tools to suppress criticism and discussion of one's administrative actions.

I care not one whit for the article that Sandifer & Porcupine are tussling over. I believe I've never edited that article at all. However, this marks the fourth occasion that I know of in which Sandifer has used his authority to enforce his preferred version of either an article or another page. If his concerns are justified, then he can ask another admin to take corrective action, rather than acing unilaterally while an involved party. Even if he could justify what he's done in this case, acting on his own when he's involved in the dispute raises the appearance of impropriety, which is as damaging to the good faith of other editors as actual impropriety would be.

It is a fundamental danger to the collaborative nature of this project to have anyone here believe they are a law unto themselves. It is especially hazardous when that belief is held by an administrator invested with special trust and confidence by the community.. Without his admin privileges, Sandifer would be just another editor who thinks he bears the banner of Truth regardless of what anyone else may think. The community can manage that kind of demagogue, but one whose actions are immune from reversion by the community at large quickly becomes an urgent problem. I believe that we can ill-afford nor long endure an administrator on this project who has transformed his community-issued mop and bucket into a flaming sword and shield with which to fell his adversaries. I support suspension of his administrative privileges or their removal and a repeat RfA. At the very least, I want to see a third-party admin without prior ties to Sandifer take the initiative and review his actions as an administrator, both in the past and from here forward, for some set period of time.

And, while I lay responsibility for the most part at Phil Sandifer's feet, the other involved parties share some of it. The current conflict seems to have been fomented by assumptions of bad faith on both sides, and by less than courteous conduct as well. It's important to keep cool when the editing gets hot, even in the face of provocation like the RfC nominator has evidently endured. --Ssbohio 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA related

[edit] current RfAs template

I replied on the Helpdesk, but I'm replying here too. Is this the one? {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 03:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Martin's RFA

That's a very thoughtful and convincing reasoning you gave there. But as you said "Please let me know if there are points I am unaware of", maybe you would be interested in reading this; it explains why a 'need for the tools' isn't really a requirement for adminship. Just a thought :) Melsaran (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was the last editor on that essay page, a few days ago. The comment you're seeing, an afterthought to the more serious concerns, is at the end of my post; it's the last one, not the main one.

What I think WP:AAAD is trying to get at is this: if you have a good editor, who checks the boxes however they need checking, but isn't active in adminship areas or particularly planning to be, that's not really a good reason to say no. They already have proven activity and trust, so the assumption is unless there's evidence to the contrary, they will continue to do so. Its examples are likewise focussed on editors who are active in some areas, not others. The concern would be risk of misuse, and a candidate with a good track record comes to RFA with reassuring evidence not to worry. In this RfA that's not evidenced. Adminship is not sought on the back of a solid and reassuring recent record with likely use for the project's benefit if ever used. If all else was fine, I'd note the non-need and decide if it's an issue or not -- bear in mind AAAD is not set in stone, it needs judgement how much it applies in given cases. However given the other concerns, the fact that in addition not even a substantial reason is evidenced... it is worth noting. It's not the most important point, and alone as a 'reason' carries little or no weight, but as a side observation in the context, seems worth noting.

Hope that helps! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are valid reasons to oppose a candidate because they haven't been active at all as of late, or because they clearly need more experience, because then you cannot be sure that the candidate has enough knowledge of our policies and the way things work and that they will use sound judgement in their decisions. However, we should generally grant adminship to anyone who can be trusted with the tools, even when they won't use them that often. Your comment said something like "this user doesn't need the tools so why should we grant them?", so I thought you meant that we should deny adminship to someone who won't use his tools but can be trusted with them nonetheless. May have been a misunderstanding on my part :) Melsaran (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Hey there. At my unsuccessful RfA, you were neutral suggesting that I get a little wider breadth of experience with admin processes. Before I try again, I wonder if you'd take a peek at my contributions of late? CSBot causes most of the traffic on my user talk, but you can still find the signal in the noise, I think. — Coren ^(talk) 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. It's not what I wanted to hear, but that's also why I asked someone who didn't support my previous request. :-) I don't think I'll ever get much mainspace-fu; this is just not where I feel I can contribute (beyond the occasional typo/format fix, maintenance tag or fresh reference). I guess I'll just wait until the weight of the rest of what I do distracts away from my non-mainspace-ness. — Coren ^(talk) 19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I guess what I was asking is whether you think I currently have too little mainspace focus to, as you say, understand how it works? There is a fine line, I think, between contributing usefully and "making busywork" — the latter I find very much distasteful. So if you think I need the extra mainspace experience in order to be a good admin, I'll just pull up my sleeves and get to work. If I only need that extra experience to look like I'd be a good admin, I'd rather expend that effort doing something I'm actually good at and defend my position when the time comes. — Coren ^(talk) 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interest of RFA

Yeah, I was keeping an eye on that RfA myself (and abstained from commenting because of the obvious parallels; I felt that would have looked self-serving). I think the decisive factor was the nomination— being nominated by a well known and respected admin does give one a leg up.

I've been practicing my mainspace-fu, mind you. Durova has been kind enough to poke me into making headway in that direction, and I've got a DYK under my belt, now. :-)

Thanks for thinking about me! — Coren ^(talk) 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). It wouldn't have been appropriate to say so while it was ongoing, but the support of one of my admin idols gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling. :-) A support from you meant a great deal to me, and I'll work damned hard at not letting you down. — Coren ^(talk) 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the community you're responsible to, not any one individual. But sentiment noted and, congratulations. :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I posted this article as a good article candidate; but noboby reviews it. Since I see that you have edited an article on treatments for diabetes; as well as many others in sciences and other topics I thought you may be willing to review it. Thanks in advance.If you want anything please answer me in my talk page--Garrondo 14:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebay-purchased articles

I added some info about the ebay buyers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Democrat4 paid to create articles in wikipedia for customers: A new MyWikiBiz? and didn't know if you could provide additional info from the article you deleted. The Kevin Eggan article dates jive with one of the purchases, but I don't have the dates for Gloria Irwin creation/edits to see if they corresponded with feedback dates and the similarity of the edits. Based on the buyers' other purchases (99 cent ebooks of links, chunks of content for online dating websites, etc.), it seemed like the articles written would also spammish. The Eggan article seemed out of place...almost like a sample or a "clip", which would make sense if the seller is a keyword factory (like an essay mill). Hope this an appropriate request, and thanks in advance either way...I like to get things noted as well, so adding any info to the notice board instead of talk pages might keep it all together. :) Flowanda | Talk 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] test

TonyBot Do: search|hello. |{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}|{{{5}}}

Yeah that will work as expected. However to execute it you would have to edit this page with an edit summary of "execute" (without the quotes). Dunno if that was part of your test, but if so it worked, sort of. :) You also used "add self" as the edit summary in adding your name to User:TonyBot/Users and the bot would ignore that, but I added you in anyway. I'm still working on what is more convenient from a usability point of view and it'll get better. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Coaching

I'm interested in this program and am asking you to be my coach if you're willing. I know I have a lot to improve on, but I think I could be a valuable addition. Momo Hemo 07:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watership Down (film)

I've been keeping an eye on this tonight; you've certainly put a lot of work in there! The new version is definitely a significant improvement. Loganberry (Talk) 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Labrador retriever

I updated my response to your comments on this article quite some time ago, but I haven't seen a response to them, nor have I seen the issues addressed. The GA on hold click is ticking - if the issues aren't addressed by September 28, 2007, I will have no other choice than to fail the article. Dr. Cash 05:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proabivuac

Just a heads up - I unblocked him (her?) - the discussion on the talk page is not overly contentious, and as far as I can tell the user did not even violate 3RR so it seems to me that a block is uncalled for at this time. If s/he violates 3RR, block - and if it happens two or three times then a week's block or longer may be justified. But the edits in question do not change the policy, and there hasn't been a revert war. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on your talk page. But the unblock is respected. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. to be clear; I am not supporting the actual edits. With respect, you have been vague about how he is violating his probation. I realize some editors want him blocked, but personally that to me is just not enough to justify a block, no matter how much they disagree with his edits. To be clear: had he violated 3RR I would have supported your block. And if he does, or if he skirts it by reverting three times a day for more than one day - well, I would consider that disruptive editing. I just didn't see anything like that. I respect your views too - you iknow that - and i only unblocked because in this case I thought you were being overzealous. If you think I am wrong please just spell it out for me. thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I brought up 3RR because it seems to me to be the easiest rule to break and has the lowest threshold for a block. I think the accusation of disruptive editing requires a higher threshold to justivey a block. Frankly, I am worried that some editors just do not want to have to deal with him/her and this is a way of avoiding having to i.e. a sign of bad faith. I do not queswtion at all that this editor needs to cooperate more with other editors, but it has to be a two-way process. I don't think he/she is trying to be disruptive, I think at last in the edits I saw s/he was acting in good faith and other editors seemed not to want to discuss it. Also, if someone makes an unpopular dit, and is reverted, and does not revert back, how much of a disruption is that? Can we agree to see how things unfold in the next 48 hours to see whether a one week block really is justified? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just left a stern warning on the user's page. Please let's just see what happens in the next 24 hours. If you still think I was wrong to unblock, block him, or tell me to and I will do it for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion being spread over your talk page, mine, and his, doesn't help. Let's see what happens, and hope it's best for him either way. The other risk is that if he doesn't rapidly understand that his best course is to just edit constructively on topics, and not vent, the next person might go directly to indef block/ban instead. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radionics

Please kindly observe that the definition in the lead of the article doesn't match the definition given at the citation's source. The definition previously changed by user jennylen was a direct citation of the same source fully matching. Also, empty sections or subsections seem to be unnecessary, they could be created when there is some content there but at this time would be logic to delete the empty sections. (I have no opinion on the article itself but I was verifying its sources when the edit war started). Librarian2 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind and most complete explanation. Librarian2 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of that article, have you noticed the latest message from jennylen at the talk page? can that editor make what he is doing? Librarian2 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading your kind explanation of the introduction (I did like it and it is very instructive) I found a slight error which may produce some misunderstanding. Reading about it and consulting some people involved in that kind of practice, it appears that the so called "energy" is not sent from person to target but from a device to the target, the practicioner is not a healer but he operates an apparatus which is assumed to do the healing.

I don't know if I am enough clear, the matter is that the definition says "sent from person to person" and that is not the case, there is always an instrument used for sending such "energy" or "rate" tuned in the apparatus, the practicioner has no healing intervention whatsoever beyond to operate the instrument. The ESP connection they claim is related with the diagnostic side in which the operator is "sensible" to the reactions of the apparatus, however there is never a direct connection or "subtle" link between the practicioner and the target. I don't know if my explanation is clear, let me know Librarian2 10:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion we're having to Talk:Radionics, and answered your comment there. Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I rather abstain from that kind of environment, I just wanted to assist in avoiding a possible inexactitude, I am good with whatever you see fit Librarian2 12:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left an answer to your question at the discussion page of the article Radionics. Brad Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.191.101 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Infomration Request

I kinda figured that admins telling me someone's IP address was off limits. I guess I am just letting this guy get to me too much. This person has "followed" me from one site to another making constant rude and defamatory comments about me and the site I used to run. I have a good idea of who it is, but no proof, hence my request. If it keeps up, I will report them to AIV or ANI and let them handle it. I wish the two diffs in question could be deleted outright because they are completely false (I ran SVRTV.net and I think I would remember being sued) but that is for a totally different board. Thanks for your help though. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lordosis image

Thanks for the note about removing the lordosis image. The thing is, while lordosis (excessive lordotic curve) can be a medical condition (like obesity), a lordotic curve is normal and need not be medically diagnosed. Some people just have more of a lordotic curve, and some people don't (commonly called flatback[50]). So while an excessive lordotic curve is not just a medical condition, but also description of posture[51]. Like saying someone is skinny, fat, short or tall, it doesn't have to be vetted by a doctor (although a nice peer-reviewed longitudinal study with normal distribution data would be helpful). It would seem to me that these things are considered common knowledge, and the photo describes this common understanding.

Now I agree that we shouldn't post undiagnosed photos of people without their permission, but since lordosis is not necessarily a medical condition, there need not be any privacy or medical problems. What do you think? Rhetth 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The points are fair ones, but you ask what I think... and what I think is, the perception and representation is that of a medical condition. The article will have a medical title, the photo will be captioned "person with lordosis" or similar rather than "person with pronounced curved lower spine", ... the perception presented and fact represented will be, "this is a photograph of a person with an abnormal medical condition". The term "lordosis" is not a common one, as best I'm aware.

Since it's discussed in the context of a medical-sounding article ("lordosis" rather than "spinal curvature") we have to take more care about how we represent it. Thats fair and commonsense. A clinincal looking photograph of pronounced curvature should not be too hard to source. But J. Random Person with a quarter face profile, in the everyday high street, labelled with a medical-sounding condition, and sourced from the context of a dubious blog, is not the best kind. We can probably do better.

What you might want to do is make more clear that lordosis is simply a medical term for a pronounced dcurvature of the back, rather than a medical problem.

Hope this helps! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endal

I am Endal's owner Allen Parton and i am just contacting you to express my gratitude for all the work you have done on researching Endal and bringing his page in to line with the Wikipedia rules. Thank you so much for all your effort and time on this project

regards Allen Parton Endal and Allen 18:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with User:Anonimu

Hello

I encountered non viki-civilised user who seems to be specially interested in subject like fascism or communism. He reverts all my contributions and do not engage in discussion. From his talk page and links it is clear he was already banned at least once. Could you please help me starting some action to moderate him? He even removes my contributon to his talk page.

Cautious 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep going. You already produced enough NPAS to gurantee a block.Anonimu 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope you engage in discusiion in the end. Cautious 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to fight about this, everyone. See the bottom thread on Cautious's talk page, as well as on Talk:Vasily Zarubin. Please read up on the three revert rule too, Anonimu and Cautious. *Cremepuff 222* 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your post on Angel David's talkpage

That was wonderfully phrased. You should save it -- maybe even post it as a WP essay, if it isn't essentially duplicated by another one.--SarekOfVulcan 03:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(For future reference: relates to this post) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom request post

Hi there. Just wanted to drop you a note to point out that you've mis-spelt a name on that ArbCom request post (the Sadi Carnot one). It's User:Wavesmikey, not "Wikismikey". I would have put the following at the ArbCom request page, but that is getting a bit long. In my view, the AfD of Wavesmikey's early efforts, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2, makes plain that the user should have been aware that this was unacceptable material. You also ask whether it would have been possible to find a "better way to keep the good and avoid the bad", but this ignores your earlier point where you ask "Are his good contribs really good?" and answer by saying "unclear as yet". I too think a topic ban would have been appropriate, but a detailed investigation of the contributions is also needed to identify which ones need clearing up. Carcharoth 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo fixed - thanks! Evidently too much wiki on the mind :) Also the other two addressed - the AFD's dated to 2005, they arent really evidence of more than "should have got a clue", which was the case anyway, I'd be reluctant to interpret a 2005 AFD as a "warning" for a 2007 case. The last of the 3 is clarification mainly (grammar) and fixed - thanks again! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: email

Replied. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 09:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Hey FT2! I was puttering around the 'pedia and happened across your comments twice today. I was very impressed by the careful thought you put into your arguments. I hope this brightens your day. Cheers —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

The WP:NPA page is protected, due to edit-warring. On the talk page we worked out some text over several iterations and after days several editors agreed to it. Then you come up with a different format for the text and after minimal agreement went ahead and added your version to the protected page. I don't believe that is the best way to draft policy. I'd prefer, if you're going to edit a protected policy page, that you add the version that actually has the consensus. Or, even better, wait until the page has been unprotected and the consensus is mature. While we should move expeditiously, I don't think we should rush to a conclusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the clarification since it was being well received at WT:NPA by several editors including yourself, and it merely clarified existing words for certainty. As you rightly noted, it was a footnote only, and posted a note to say this was done.

Shortly after, I noticed the page was protected - since admins can edit through protection I hadn't realized this immediately. Page protection applies to all; as soon as I realized I'd edited a protected page, I self-reverted the footnote you mention in its entirety. The only change I left was a minor format change only - namely an italic of a clause that by then we had all agreed was the important one, to leave it more prominent. Not one letter of WP:NPA was altered. The protection was honored a fair while before you asked.

Apologies for this; hopefully by checking the record you will see I had fixed it myself already, removing the footnote an hour before the above note :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I've accidentally edited protected pages before too, so I know how that can slip through. I wouldn't have mentioned it except this has been a difficult process and I'm hoping we'll achieve an unquestioned consensus on the proposal. Thanks for your participation and help in that direction. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I issue this Editor's Barnstar for your help on a practcuallr edit to WP:COI to help clearify a problem I was having. The edit which I was talking about is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=next&oldid=167501188 The previous statement of that Nutshell statement made ti seem like articles like Internet could very well be in violation of this despite it being written in neutral. The new nutshell statements implies that you can't write or edit an article if its in your interest. Thank you for being Bold. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^\| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 09:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but this was at heart, a communally agreed decision. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The navigation tool box on the WP:ANI

Hello, FT2, I'm Appletrees, and just want to thank you for your navigation tool box on the WP:AN. Previously, I reported regarding some editor's abusive behaviors but due to my lengthy contents, sysops didn't care much about my report. And accidently by a bot, my reported was removed, so i felt unfair at that time. However, I was so impressed to see your tidy and folding navigation box to enable people to engage in a case. I removed some irrelevant contents and rearranged my report with the tool that you used. I really thank you for enlightening me on such the tool. It helped me a lot to reduce my case too long. And more surprisingly, you're a sysop also, so if you could spare a time to look at my report on the incident page, I really appreciate more than anyone. Thanks. --Appletrees 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please provide a reference

Discussion kept for historical talkpage purposes only.

Please provide a reference (as long as it is not a self-ref) or the uncited material will be deleted and replaced with the previous version I added.[52] I believe a self-ref cannot be used to verify the text. Do you know if self-refs can be used for context purposes when the text has already been verified by a third-party ref? Thank you. Mr.Guru talk 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an unusual case; the article is History of Wikipedia and the subject is a statement placed by Jimmy Wales on Wikipedia. So the first thing is, that this is possibly an extremely unusual case, since in most articles Wikipedia itself is not the subject of the article nor the location a notable claim was published. The main problem with Wikipedia as a source is that it can be edited by anyone. However its important to distinguish text in general, from diffs and permanent references, which cannot usually be edited after submission (or can only be edited in the same sense that an archive from The New York Times or the BBC can be, ie by illicit tampering with the website).

The purpose of WP:RS is to protect ourselves from two problems: 1/ placing reliance on content that is essentially freely modified, 2/ placing reliance on claims and assertations that are not visibly and long term/permanently agreed by some credible source as being their view. In this case several features seem to suggest this diff is a reliable source:

The claim being made is that "Jimmy Wales asserts that Rosenfeld told him about wikis".
The evidence is a permanent record of a wikipedia diff in which Jimmy Wales' account makes an edit containing that claim, as opposed to (say) a wikipedia current page that "anyone can edit". Wikipedia diffs are usually considered a reliable archive of things that Wikipedia editors did or did not add to the wiki as their own words and statements.
The diff is acting as a primary source (ie, it requires no interpretation or synthesis (WP:OR) to obtain a meaning).
The reliability of the source comes from the fact that the statement is in a permanent archive which I suspect by common agreement is considered reliable for such statements. You will see that the article Wikipedia contains similarly, cites from within Wikipedia. (Strictly these should be perm references and not just page links but the principle holds - the community appears to have considered them "reliable".)

Ordinarily the difficulty would be sourcing elsewhere, since one runs the risk that a seemingly-reliable 3rd party statement is in fact 'behind the scenes' sourced by the writer from Wikipedia itself. However as it happens, after a bit of digging we do in fact by chance seem to have a third party reliable source for this claim source and a few others; I'll add it to the article since in general if a factual statement can be cited without self-ref that's indeed usually preferable. But in general, I would feel that a diff on wikipedia is a reliable source for a claim that its creator wrote the words contained. if it comes up again, though, i'd be fine RFC'ing it, since it is a tricky and exceptional situation.

Thanks for the comment - I'll go edit that article now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_Wikipedia&diff=167518610&oldid=167518141#Article_review

You wrote: In addition, that version cited many pages for Sanger's claims. These included revision history of talk pages, and of the Wikipedia article, press releases, and media publications. I've removed all the former -- the risk of a self-ref is huge. The talk pages and Wikipedia articles were edited by many people, so we would be insane to try and cite a specific Wikipedia page version or a [sic] poage revision history to "prove" any specific status quo was the case.

According to you we should not use any self-refs. You deleted the self-refs I added. The self-refs I added were only used for context purposes and not used to verify the text. However, you are attempting to use a self-ref to verify the text which you wrote, we would be insane to try and cite a specific Wikipedia page version or a poage [sic] revision history...

Hmmm. Mr.Guru talk 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. There is a difference between a diff (which is the work of one specific person at one specific time) and a revision of an entire page (which is the work of many people up to that time).

We can only say one of three things really: - if we have a specific diff, we can reliably say "editor/person X said Y" (a primary source so we can state this with fair confidence). If we have a permanent page link we can only reliably say "on date X the article said Y" (but we can't know if that was representative of other versions of the page five minutes earlier or later, or if it was representative of others' views not recorded on that page). If we have a current page link we can't say a thing reliably since it might change within seconds.

The cites I removed were page cites. They can't attest to any actual fact since we have no evidence that the words appearing on the 5 December 200X version of a page were typed by Wales, even though it is a permanent version. They can't attest to what the "status quo" was since the diff of 5 December 200X might well be an abberation compared to that of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th or 7th. By contrast a specific diffs does testify to the words of one specific person, at one specific point in time, effectively (the community seems to agree) permanently. Hopefully this explains. Your link was to an entire page attempting (as I recall) to use it to say "this proves X was the status quo". That's not reliable evidence for the claim. The replacement was to one specific persons words, a very different matter. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Afterthought: You might want to re-read WP:V again, especially the two sections on self-published sources, and self-published sources in articles about themselves. My impression is these would have answered this question as well. If you still have questions can we move this to Talk:History of Wikipedia to keep it there for others? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question reviewed and previous treatment still seems correct both by policy (WP:V+WP:RS), communal practice elsewhere, and commonsense interpretation of the purpose and intent of these. Additional direct (non-circular) source located to confirm.

Discussion copied and moved to Talk:History of Wikipedia to ensure accessibility for others, given that self-ref issues are likely to be a future question on this article.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppets of a banned user?

Hi -- I saw your note about banning some of the sock puppets of a banned user. I was just curious how you knew? Jessamyn (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

This is a reincarnated banned user. Unfortunately I'm not going to be answering this one. It's a legitimate question, the difficulty is that my aim is to remove disruptive users, and due to his history this is one that we remove, but do not explain "how we knew". However the evidence was exceptional; it was not a "maybe".

I'm sorry that on this occasion I can't meet your curiosity, however I hope you'll understand.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

no problem, thanks for the reply. Jessamyn (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppet or meat puppet of Spoctacle / HeadleyDown

I am pretty sure I have become a victim of this HeadleyDown strategy, perpetrated first by Spoctacle and now by Vannin:

"Eventual vicious personal attacks on more neutral editors, especially alleging bias or pro-<subject>."

"Plays the game with policies, especially WP:NPOV, cites, and demands for cites. Eventually turns to virulent personal attacks (alleging bias, promotion, covert support for topic X) to kill off any editors who might object to their actions. Appears to be within rules and yet somehow the article keeps getting more and more extreme, even as claiming to be "helping" it or making it "more neutral".

The article in question - Davis Dyslexia Correction has not become more slanted toward the Spoctacle/Vannin point of view, mostly because I am very vigilant, especially about fact checking & source citing. However, it has become more slanted toward the opposite point of view, because they kept demanding more verification & I kept obliging. Or else they would post a false or misleading unsourced statement, which I would try to correct -- leaving me with an edit history that seems all one-sided, when in fact it is mostly a response to efforts to undermine the veracity of the article. (It may help you to know that Davis Dyslexia Correction has a strong philosophical connection to NLP).

This has been going on for months but I was not aware of the Spoctacle/HealeyDown connection until this week.

The result is that Vannin has filed a COI complaint against me for reasons that have always been fully disclosed on my user page (I post under my real name & link to a web site with my bio). I do have an interest as well as specialized knowledge; I generally do not edit topics that I have no interest or knowledge in, unless I happen to run across an interesting tidbit. This has led the COI team to come down like a ton of bricks.

I need help - suggestions on how to deal with this. The article was marked for deletion and was asked to provide evidence of WP:N - which could be done with all sorts of sourcing that I would not continue appropriate for a Wikipedia article (such as evidence of extensive discussion of the topic on internet forums) - so I created a separate sub-page with that info & linked to it, figuring that the last thing I wanted to do create a bigger NPOV issue by putting all that extraneous stuff on the main page.

Also, if you have ways of figuring it out, it would help me to know if Vannin is or is not another HealyDown sockpuppet -- it certainly looks like it & Vannin will not provide identifying info, but I have no clue how to determine this. Armarshall 08:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I'll be in touch on this, but it might take a few days to review. As you surmize, it's messy.

Thanks, and speak soon,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 18th century journals

Good start, but this is just the beginning. I left a note on that page. You did say you wanted an "expert" and I'm as close as you're likely to find here. :) DGG (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

I'm far from expert, but I can see the holes that need closing. This was a new article suggested as a "challenge" by jayvdb, but it really will need expert input to get it good :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to Participate in a Survey

Survey post - rolled up.

dear Wikipedia Administrator ,

thank you for your kind attention to this message.

My name is Zhan Li and I am a PhD student at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. ( You can view my bio (scroll down) for verification here: http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Doctoral/1.aspx )

I am asking approx. 200 randomly selected Wikipedia administrators if they would like to participate in a brief (it might take you about 10 minutes) online survey about their use of open content online encyclopedias. I am conducting this research for an introductory research methods class under Professor Peter Monge ( http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~monge/ ).

I hope that, if possible, you will participate in this survey. Please note that you must be 18 years older or over to participate.

Here is the link for the online survey, which begins with information pages detailing survey conditions and participant rights as well as my contact details for any questions:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=a73oeHUjW9QKvYB7fmIb0A_3d_3d

The survey will close at Pacific Standard Time 12:15 AM on Wednesday 14th November. If you have any problems accessing this link, please let me know.

I appreciate your consideration of this request.

Thank you very much Zhan Li ( email: zhanli at usc dot edu ) Zhanliusc 07:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor's index

Thanks; yes, I agree that it should be moved to project space. My intention is to do that in late November or (more likely) by mid-December. I've been holding off because I'm slightly more than halfway through writing a book that is based on the index; that gives me the opportunity to do a sort of "final scrub" of the index (particularly its organization) before it becomes "official".

The shortcut, WP:EIW, won't change, which is why I put that as a link in my last posting. Hopefully that will suffice for your purposes. -- John Broughton (??) 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It will, and we'll talk on the index later which sounds interesting too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have no clue

Flame post - rolled up.

You really, REALLY need to get a clue before you make wild accusations about a long-time administrator.

Michael Morrison has nothing to do whatsoever with the Apple software known as Time Machine. He is apparently linked with a company called Solution-Soft, which makes the "Time Machine (Solution-Soft software)" product. Both are encyclopedic, if marginally so for the latter - a search for "Time Machine (Solution-Soft)" reveals several relevant reliable sources. I thought it was deletable too, but I found I was wrong. The question is whether we can have huge ugly (TM) and (R) marks on the page, which relevant guidelines say we should not. I admit edit-warring in violation of WP:3RR to keep them out, but either way it's moot now because the article's been deleted.

Total Recorder is an encyclopedic product as well - just friggin' Google-search it.

This whole thread was started by a sockpuppet of the person who speedy-tagged Total Recorder, and is now randomly pissed off that it's not deleted. Maybe you need to look at his motivations, eh? FCYTravis 16:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(Note for future reference: This refers to this ANI thread, and the inaccuracies in the above statement were discussed and evidenced there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) )

[edit] Neutrality Project

Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Project has not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. _Jame§^ugrono 07:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware it might've :) But consider me signed up there and will add input on the project page :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am taking the time to message each person on the review list is because even with about forty people supposedly "reviewing" requests, we have still built up a backlog of requests. Even requests which are technically open have become stale. I am trying to make sure that even though it appears to be working, it actually is. I am extending this from my usual self-imposed clerical duties of Projects - I usually tidy and keep pages archived and so on, however, in this case, there were far too many articles in the backlog than is acceptable. If you mean you will participate by checking the Category that articles with the NPOV tag get placed into, then I would appreciate it if you removed your name from the reviewers list - anyone can check for NPOV. The reviewers' list is specifically for people who will review requests on the Project page. _Jame§^ugrono 07:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The project page listing is what I meant :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Village Pump Response

Ah, okay. I coulda sworn there was a single policy, but I guess I just mixed two of them together. Thanks for your help! Anakinjmt (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(note: refers to this)

[edit] re: A blunt answer

(Re: this note, which in turn followed on from a question raised by User:JayHenry at Village Pump)

The question was not rhetorical. I fully expect a very complete answer from User:Durova and I expect it sooner rather than later. I want an explanation because today one of the best editors in the history of Wikipedia was indefinitely blocked. The current incarnation of this user had never made a single disruptive edit -- not one! -- had over 100 credits at DYK, and was actively involved in copy editing and improving our featured articles. Apparently, none of the "senior editors" who reviewed the evidence remembered that encyclopedia building is part of what we do here. So I mean my question quite literally: if one user can be blocked after 100 percent constructive edits, what protection do I -- do any of us outside this elite of "senior editors" -- have? The blocked editor, by the way, had many powerful friends on the project. I do not.

I eagerly await an accounting from User:Durova. But I fear that she has little respect for the community, little respect for editors like me. A fear that seems to be confirmed as the hours wane and my question remains ignored. --JayHenry (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

At present I haven't looked into that issue (I gather that others are, so it's not being ignored). What I have given you is specifically and simply, my own view on your question and editor removal, and my own understanding when it may be applicable. Hopefully it adds a measure of certainty and reassurance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It does add a measure of certainty and I thank you for that. A clarification, however, I believe you were responding to my post at Questions for Durova, rather than a post at the Village Pump. --JayHenry (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - you're right! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Index lists

Hi. I'd appreciate your input on this complex issue, which I've drafted a summary of at Wikipedia:Lists/Index lists: where to ask it, your thoughts on how I could explain the issues more clearly, and your thoughts on the issue itself. (I want to get it right the first time. I'm tired of RfC's without sufficient response!)

Does it belong at Village pump (policy), or somewhere else? How would you tweak it?

I plan on leaving pointers/notices at the talkpage of everything mentioned, plus people who have commented before. Is there anyone you'd suggest I notify in addition, for valuable/specialized input?

Reply wherever you prefer (I watchlist). There's more I'd like to ask, and context to give, but I don't want to snow you with details, and am just trying to get everything as concise and accurate as possible. And just point me towards someone else appropriate, if you don't have the time or inclination. Much thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit late here; quick thoughts though. There aren't many good places for major discussions on subjects that aren't already part of some page. You have several options how to do this... (eg: collapse-box on VPP, RFC, subpage, user space etc) some of which may work better than others. I'll discuss it on that page's talk page though, to keep it centralized - grab me tomorrow.

Best, FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Morning :)

I wasn't sure whether you meant for me to remind ("grab") you, so that's all this is. I'm trying to go slow, but hoping to be ready to post the issue somewhere by tonight. Email is fine/fast too, if you prefer that :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Lists/Index lists. However, you look very busy with arb-nom stuff, so I'll go poke some other semi-random admins for feedback. No worries :) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thread moved to the Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists, if you'd like to take a look. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wizards and Muggles Rock for Social Justice!

Could you please revert the article, Wizards and Muggles Rock for Social Justice! to it's original content as the Harry and the Potters article is a Featured Article candidate. I will comply with CSD A7 and also WP:NOTINHERITED and will therefore expand the article so that it is notable and worthy of its own article. Hpfan9374 (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it to your user space, at User:Hpfan9374/Wizards and Muggles, the last version prior to its removal. Note that I've commented out the categories (by replacing them with "[[:Category:...]]") since its not yet an article and article categories shouldn't be added to non-article pages.

What I'd suggest is, improve it, to the point you feel an article should exist, then visit deletion review and post a link to it, commenting it was speedy deleted but you believe it now merits an article, can someone review. In fact, it may be better to sum up your evidence and cites (on its talk page) why you feel it's notable as a band, and ask someone to review that, rather than going to all the work of writing an article, only to find others still not agreeing.

Best, FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived April 18 2008

[edit] Legal threats policy

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

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

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

[edit] User:Jeeny

The Block log [53] isn't showing a reblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately I disagree. Strongly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Jeeny

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

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

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

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

[edit] Jeeny redux

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

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

[edit] "Traditional Knowledge" Disclaimer

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

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

Detailed re-post from VP rolled up.

Article 31 of the United Nations Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples proclaims the following regarding indigenous intellectual property-

"Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions"

Countries likely to us the english Wikipedia, with statues/legislation protecting indigenous intellectual property of this kind include (but is not limited to): Nigeria (Copyright Act 1990), Central African Republic (Ordinance No. 85-002 on Copyright (Central African Republic)) and Ghana (Copy Right Act 2005 )

Relevant court law in Australia include Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd (1995), with courts recognising the 'cultural harm' indigenous plaintiff's suffered as a consequence of misuse of their designs on carpets, awarding damages, and implying communal ownership of indigenous designs; Foster v Mountford (1976), where the court granted indigenous plaintiffs an injunction to prevent the sale of a book written by an anthropologist (Mountford) containing confidential information given to the author in confidence.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation maintains a database of existing codes, guides, policies, protocols and standard agreements relating to the recording, digitization and dissemination of intangible cultural heritage, with an emphasis on intellectual property ..

In the end, though, all that was asked for of Wikipedia administrators, was to insert the words 'traditional knowledge' into an existing list comprised of things like "collective marks" and, yes, "personality rights" (still not sure what these are?). I have since suggested there is sufficient rationale for such a small edit of the general disclaimer, of the kind requested, and because there can be no harm (?) and there is no real reason not to make this edit .. then let Wikipedia community be more encompassing, and less narrow.

Hans Adler (talk) comments were understanding and useful.

Perhaps there may be one or more administrators who may be similarly understanding and perhaps agreeable to (re)editing the disclaimer, or alternative measure (perhaps a notice regarding indigenous content on relevant articles?)

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

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

[edit] Regis Silva, Hotel des Arts, and User:Greatartists210

[edit] Speedy deletion of Regis Silva

[edit] DELETE ARTICLE ASP

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

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

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

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

[edit] HOTEL DES ARTS

COPYRIGHTS VIOLATION

copyrighted material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] REMOVE ALL INFORMATION

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

[edit] remove all artist information from wikipedia

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

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

[edit] thank you for comment

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

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

[edit] Arbcom elections

[edit] Signpost - ArbCom questions

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

What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
Why do you think users should vote for you?

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

[edit] Reply

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

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

[edit] ArbCom table with portfolio links

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

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

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

Thank you for your enthusiasm! I replied to your message on my talk page. — Sebastian 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

[edit] Email

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

[edit] Question

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

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

[edit] ArbCom

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

[edit] Question again

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

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

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

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

[edit] ArbCom Elections - Voting Talk page

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

[edit] Arbcom Question

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

[edit] horrible time

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

[edit] Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! ? ? ?

[edit] Happy New Year

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

[edit] Happy New Year!

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

[edit] Russell Bishop - Tag

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bodil locket.png

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

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

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

[edit] AFD and DRV

[edit] Barbara Schwarz (DRV)

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

Looks good. The only three suggestions I have are:

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

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

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

[edit] re Dwellers of the Forbidden City close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Deletion review [Dwellers of the Forbidden City]

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

[edit] Deletion [Barbara Schwarz]

Hi. Would you please ask AN to delete his version of Schwarz also (User:Anynobody/test area). I am really not to deal with him directly as per the COFS arb.[54] Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

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

[edit] James Barker (athlete)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try that?

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

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

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

[edit] Callmebc

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

[edit] Could you comment? [Names blocking policy]

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

[edit] Arbcom

[edit] It is official

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Congrats!

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

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

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

[edit] A heads up [Notice]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Happy New Year, FT2

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

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

[edit] IRC ArbCom case comment

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

[edit] ScienceApologist

I disagree with your assessment here,[55] but won't press the point. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Disputed images

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Matrix bullets.png

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

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

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

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

[edit] RFAR Basboll

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

[edit] User:Pilotbob

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

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

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

[edit] Erik Mona ? User:Iquander

Erik Mona would appear to be User:Iquander [56] [57] [58] who has been involved with many of the D&D articles and AfDs, etc. This is a huge conflict of interest and I'm not sure what the appropriate course is? Thoughts? --Jack Merridew 10:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] TDC

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

[edit] More help needed

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

[edit] Rollback mess

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

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

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

[edit] Rollback RFAR

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

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

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

[edit] Take a look

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

[edit] I've been away...

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

[edit] SandyGeorgia/Zeraeph ArbCom - proposed decisions/Discussion by arbitrators

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

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

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [59]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Coaching

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

[edit] AfD nomination of Wizards and Muggles Rock for Social Justice!

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

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

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

[edit] Email

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

[edit] Email

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

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

[edit] Zeibura

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

[edit] User:FT2/Templates/Contact

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

[edit] Please help

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

[edit] More evidence they're all BFP

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

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

[edit] Andrew Regan

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

[edit] Wikipedia:What Were They Thinking?

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

[edit] Question about whether a proposed finding of fact has a chance

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

[edit] Naming suggestion

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

[edit] Your recent edits

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

[edit] Advice needed

Hiya, I was wondering if you could maybe give me some advice on something? There's a dispute at the Franco-Mongol alliance article with a tendentious editor who's WP:OWNing the article, that's been dragging on for months now. I'm worried that it's heading to ArbCom, since we've been trying pretty much every other step of DR, but without success. Talkpage discussion, polite messages to his user talkpage, an article RfC,[60] a few ANI threads, and mediation,[61] but no luck. We're to the point now where the editor, PHG (talk · contribs) is faking edit summaries, like saying he's doing a revert, when in actuality he's adding more POV information into the article. For discussion and diffs, see here.[62]

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

[edit] Ehud Lesar

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

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

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

[edit] Matthew Hoffman case

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152

I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay 38 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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

[edit] history of wikipedia

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

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

[edit] MfD

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

[edit] Requesting ticket review

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

[edit] Talk:Ray Williams (businessman)

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

[edit] Anthon01

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Some users"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Question

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

[edit] Checkuser on waterboarding RFAR

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

[edit] Help

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

[edit] User talk:68.148.134.201

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

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

[edit] Corey Delaney

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

[edit] Corey Delaney (II)

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

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:MetaNPOV

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

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

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

[edit] following

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Guywithdress

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

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

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

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

[edit] Question about Episodes/Characters temporary injunction

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

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

[edit] Some questions about Zoosexuality and the law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Question about Archtransit

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

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

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

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

[edit] Preview

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Octavian history

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

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

[edit] Archtransit

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Question on your comments

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

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

No problem.

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

[edit] Episode and Character Rfar

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Bad joke, I need one administrator...

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

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

[edit] AfD nomination of United States journalism scandals

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

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

[edit] Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

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

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

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

This user supports delegable proxy.

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Great

What a great edit to Radionics [63]. There are so few NPOV editors who come from outside and edit the fringe articles, that one sometimes wonders what such an editor would do if they did happened by. It's just the kind of tone I've been striving for, especially in leads, for years now. And I doubt you consciously tried to meet the standards of the Paranormal ArbCom, but what you did is exactly what it recommends in terms of framing a fringe subject. Again, a sign that both that ArbCom is common sense, and that fringe articles need really neutral editors. There are a couple of interviews here you might be interested in:

Interview with ScienceApologist Interview with Martinphi

The setup page for the interviews

——Martin^phi ? ? F—— 04:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia holds its critics hostage

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

[edit] Email

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

[edit] Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration

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

[edit] VANDALISM BY ZSERO

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

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

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

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

[edit] My Apology

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

[edit] Article probation

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

[edit] RebCoh

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

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

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

[edit] Your opinion required: Moviestar.ie

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

[edit] Hope

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

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

[edit] MM arbitration question

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

[edit] Well?

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

[edit] Wondering about potential Mikka case

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

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

[edit] My bad (expression)

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

[edit] Elonka

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

Yes. I have been steneously attacked by Elonka and a few other users with the claim that I misrepresented things, specifically that there were multiple Viam agnoscere veritatis letter instead of the one I created the article about [64]. Sounds like a rather ridiculous argument, but they tried to make a big deal of it. Elonka's claim however turned out to be a fabrication: she made up that there were three such named letters. Apparently nobody in the litterature gives the same name to these three letters: her claim is totally original research. It is normal that I inform participants of this fact. I will also ask them to remove these unfair accusations against me on the RfA. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] AfD nomination of My bad (expression)

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

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

[edit] You have mail

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

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

[edit] RFAR refile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] IRC

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

[edit] You got mail ...

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

[edit] Philip Buble

I assume you created this. Are you aware it's been deleted? I'm considering DRV, because most voters cited BLP and notability, which I don't believe is valid. Buble is, IMO, notable because he claims to be the first publically out zoophile, and because the court decided that assaults motivated by the victim's zoophilia can be classed as hate crimes. The article could be expanded to mention Buble's testimony before the Legislature's Criminal Justice Committee.[65] Privacy shouldn't be a concern, because he clearly wishes to be a public figure. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Japan-Korea

Hello FT, it seems we need special Macedonia-like sanctions for all Korea-Japan topics, the disruption isn't going away. Please see my post here [66], where I was (heretically, I know) proposing to just install these sidestepping you guys, but then I thought you might want to have a say in it. If you want to keep this under Arbcom responsibility, could we have some kind of speedy process? I don't think there's much likelihood that a classic evidence-workshop etc procedure at this point would come up with anything concrete enough to result in individual sanctions that we couldn't just as well do on the admin level, and frankly speaking I don't have time enough to do much of the evidence stuff (and doubt other neutral observers will). It would only be a mess and not worth it. Let's just go Srbija do Tokija and extend WP:ARBMAC-style rules to Korea/Japan. Or, if you prefer, you could package it as a widening of the existing Liancourt Rocks probation. We particularly need to have wide discretionary power to deal speedily with suspected meat- and sockpuppets. Fut.Perf. ¤ 09:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] PHG Arbcom

Hi FT2. I would like to share with you some updates about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [67]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [68]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support [69]. Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. Regards PHG (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] AfD nomination of United States journalism scandals

I have nominated United States journalism scandals, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] List of United States journalism scandals

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Suggestions relating to MM decision

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Email

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

[edit] Nicely said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Over-advocating"?

Two issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] RfAR request re Mackan79/SlimVirgin/Anticipation of...

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

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

[edit] GWH/Mackan question

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

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

[edit] Following up on Mantanmoreland decision

Just to let you know that I have recently received an expression of interest to work on the involved articles from Greg Comlish and have provided him with some background.[70] I have also left a message on Newyorkbrad's talk page, as he was the primary author of this decision. Risker (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] 9/11 arbitration

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Don Murphy

Hi FT2,

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

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

[edit] Working group question

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

[edit] Re:AN

(Re [71])

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

FT2, thanks for your analysis. It is deep and thoughful even though there are things on which I would like to comment. Very busy now and will post later in detail (at AN perhaps). For now, just one thing. I never ever stalk Piotrus having not clicked on his contribs for over a year at least (to minimize the stress from what I would see) . I stated that multiple times elsewhere [72] and Piotrus knows where I said it. He accused me, despite my assertions, repeatedly and even demanded proofs on how else I ran into his articles.[73] The explanations were always given. At the same time, I cannot post to any board or talk page without his attention, even obscure technical deletion debates or posting to talks of people he never interacted with or images outside of his interest to not get commented upon by Piotrus or not get a diff added to his diff-dump[74] [75] [76] [77] [78] he still maintains to this day.[79] [80] I will bring in diffs on the matter separately.

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

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

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

A couple of narrow comments.

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

And I don't repeat "accusations". Your diff-dump is a fact. Its accidental discovery by me was a deep shock and when you tell me that you ceased maintaining it and promise to stop gossiping about me behind my back, I will happily offer you (or accept) an olive brunch at that very moment. I am not happy with this relationship. I just don't want anymore backroom stuff. Your non-apology apology [81] discussed in the thread with Balcer offered no such assurances. You also refused to denounce it in our later exchanges.[82] [83]

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

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

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

[edit] A week later

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

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

[edit] Archived April 24 2008 (re April 2008)

[edit] Perplexed!

Commented out, see below

[edit] Comment

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

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

I don't appreciate you calling me a stalker, that is very offensive. I have had FT2's talk page on my watchlist for some time, so this really is not about you. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of AGF is to try to read others' comments in the best light possible rather than the worst light possible. "little" and "how are you" indicate a playful mood rather than a serious accusation. At least for someone who does not violate AGF. Just as making attacks is wrong, seeing an attack where there is none is wrong. Please try harder to AGF in the future. Please? WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tweaking

This is not really a tweak. It is a substantive change that should be explained in the edit summary. Either that, or cross it out, or use the preview button. It is confusing enough trying to follow what you are saying without the tweaks and changes, and I say that as someone that does the same thing. Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What conduct was that?

Hello, FT2. I quote your post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II:

"A user 1/ following norms and 2/ asking advice whether X edit is "uncivil". 3/ No request was made other than that one, and the one request asked is 4/ completely reasonably asked. In summary, where one user (an involved admin) asked one appropriate question and got two answers, both reasonable... becomes reported on-wiki as "conspiring to block". By the same person who has an interest in redirecting attention away from their own conduct. Such misdirection can only go so far before one says "enough".[84]

Since it was I who reported the incident on the wiki here, it's presumably me you're talking about? I won't disperse attention by going into the omissions and misquotes in your account; I simply suppose you wrote in a hurry, and did not intentionally mislead. But I really must ask what you mean about my "interest in redirecting attention away from my own conduct." What conduct is that? "Conduct"? I do have a decent reputation for integrity in this community (still do, no thanks to the cavalier way the ArbCom has handled that reputation), and I must defend myself against vague and nasty slurs. Please explain what you mean. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

No, it wasn't in reference to you. More to the point, it wasn't in my awareness that you had or hadn't been a reporter of the matter, I hadn't been around much at that time. The post is a result of two things - a claim by Giano to have "100% evidence" of conspiring to block, contrasted with my own having a copy of the log which makes it pretty clear that this was more likely a misrepresentative, disingenuous statement. As a number of users pointed out [85], focussing on the locale where a user asked for advice, which is exactly what should be done, portraying that as a "conspiracy" when in fact advice only was asked, and the attempt to rather obviously game this as a way to distract from the actual issue - user conduct and validity of block judgement... this demonstrates an "interest in redirecting attention away from their own conduct".

It's good you check, since that lets me clear it for you by saying quite bluntly, it wasn't you referred to. This was a case where a user knew the issue was based upon their conduct and the judgement of that conduct as uncivil, who spuriously sought to use "IRC!" as an excuse even though by their own admission they had seen the log, a user who by inclination or accident misrepresented or at the least gave a bad faith interpretation of the entire prior debate up to that point also and continued to do so thereafter in loud tones even when pointed to prior dialog which evidence clearly their claims were unmerited, and who knew that the community takes a dim few of such behavior. There may be differences of opinion on a matter, but misrepresentation and what seems to me at least, to be dissembling, is never a way to handle that.

That said, I have now re-read your post again, and believe I see the mistake within it.

An admin is expected to be able to block for a matter if they consider it is appropriate to do so, which often includes for breach of an ArbCom ruling. That's their judgement, and their place. If an admin is themselves involved in the situation, then the norm going years back is, they ask another admin to review the matter and decide and act instead. For example, if admin X is in a 3RR dispute with user Y, then the best practice we have is admin X asks other admins to review the matter and explains their concern. Others reading the matter are obligated to review and form their own view, not just to act as proxy admins though. That's how it should work, and the complete norm on-wiki, in email, on IRC, or in any other way.

In this case an admin was in a revert dispute with a user, and they felt a comment by that user probably breached a sanction. They asked if other admins thought it was uncivil, and that was the extent of their question. In other words, reporting their concerns, and sanity checking their view on it. That is exactly what we try to drum into admins to do, as opposed to use tools themselves in a content dispute. Another admin who apparently saw the information, evidently formed the view after reviewing, that the post was uncivil, and enacted the ArbCom sanction. That sanction says simply that if any admin feels Giano makes an edit that is uncivil, they may block. Evidently the other admin felt the edit was indeed uncivil, and that a block was appropriate. That was his view, and apparently formed completely by and for themselves. It's also completely correct that this is the norm we expect others to follow, when an admin themselves is involved in a matter. They report it to other admin/s (without requiring or demanding others to block or not), and another admin forms a view and acts on their own cognisance. This, if followed, is what the community has always deemed good practice.

So long as the request would not stray into "canvassing a block" or "forum shopping" for a block, communal norms have not had a problem with admins passing along, for review and (if deemed necessary) handling, those cases they themselves would be involved parties in. It's clear this safeguard was scrupulously followed by both the reporting and blocking admin in this case.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me piping up here, FT2 (I responded in the AN/I subpage too....). What seems to me to be the heart of the matter is the feeling that the IRC channel doesn't really serve very well as a sounding board. This may or may not be true in general terms, but certainly it seems a poor choice in this case (astoundingly poor actually - I'm happy to go over why I think this is so, if asked), and the broader community view, per discussions, and Giano's unblocking, seems to be that it was an unhelpful block. I've never been into the #admins channel (I'd like to, actually!), but is there any merit at all in concerns that it acts as a prism in certain areas, and therefore that the views distilled therein can be somewhat distorted? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Long reply I'm afraid - hope it's helpful.

It's possible - no people are flawless. But in fact it very rarely happens. I've been asked to investigate about 6 or so cases this last 9 months, by Irpen, Giano, Bishonen, at RFAR, on ANI, and others, but in most of those - in fact all but one or two in a nine month period, the channel actually functioned exactly as one would wish it to. The one case it didn't, I myself reported in full to the community at ANI, with full summary of the IRC dialog, so that it was made public in detail (a blocked admin had sought an unblock on dubious grounds, another admin had unblocked trusting that without sufficiently checking for themselves).

The problem with using "IRC!" as a smokescreen is, those who go there know in fact it's extremely rare, so naturally it loses credibility and is seen as a way to further a "politicized" agenda, by those who have bad memories of IRC from years back. We have an agreed structure to address problems in the channel, yet "for whatever reason" those who feel there is a problem never actually come to me (or any channel operator) to have it resolved. They instead pass logs round, a move guaranteed to shed more heat, but not actually solve the problem. That to me says a lot; a person genuinely with a concern would ask to discuss it, and aim for resolution, just like any other dispute. These cases though are never used for dispute resolution, but only ever for dispute escalation. (Also often quite tenuous when examined.) That seems to say something.

As for your specific question, again, yes, it's possible. But unlikely. Administrators, who undergo a quite strict and probing debate over their conduct and understanding of wiki-attitudes, are quite a varied bunch. They include diverse views - Bishonen, Lar, Coren, 1==2, myself, Carcharoth, to name but a few at random in this context. Any and all admins can go to that channel, and some 60 - 70 users on average are regularly there at any given time. They cover extreme diverse views too - to the point that no one stance can get much if any of a toehold there if it isn't proper. There will always be strong voices around.

RFA candidates will not be "representative of the community as a whole". The community includes many vandals for example, under-represented at RFA, and many who understand policy well (probably over-represented at RFA). What is possible to say is, the users at #en-admins are probably representative of those users the community has deemed sufficiently trustworthy in judgement and clued in on wiki ethos, to use the tools. This shows in a few ways -- for example, an outburst by a user (rare in itself) will often be addressed by general refusal to endorse it, and letting one or two users speak for everyone, or resolving in private chat to actually educate people how to handle things better, and that works very well. On-wiki, you'd get more people inclined to shout than fix. En-admins as a channel tends to look to fix problems by resolving them. When problems are visible, they get addressed.

They're also rather long suffering and (I suspect) used to the idea that bad faith will exist no matter what they say or do, and used to having their words pored over in a manner that nobody else would expect on-wiki, and misrepresented if necessary to create smoke. That's not ideal. It's a bit dysfunctional, as it encourages others to stir up problems that have little to no merit, make a large noise over a tiny number of tiny matters (major drama, someone used a bad word once and then when corrected by others agreed it was wrong a few minutes later, for example), to shout rather than approach those who might help, and so on. That kind of foolishness and "hype" helps nobody.

Lastly, it's worth noting that critically minded users play a very valuable role in that they can approach channel operators if they have concerns, on the spot, or indeed speak up in the channel. When they do, if it's merited, it is usually supported, and would indeed be the best way to effect disapproval or correction. I strongly encourage this, because I greatly suspect the number of cases that would be raised and found genuine would be very small, and they should be raised openly in the channel when noticed. But they probably only happen extremely rarely. To take an extreme case, suppose someone is present, believes an action is wrong, but says nothing, does nothing, and instead complains to a third party (non admin) who lacks all knowledge, but whom they encourage in a belief they have been conspired against. And all the time not broaching it in the channel, nor to any of the channel operators who have made their names known for exactly this purpose last month. This does the community a disservice. Such matters should be named openly to channel users, or privately to channel operators, if they are felt wrong, not "shored up for future" or used as fodder for disputing.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

don't worry about the long replies - many a pithy one liner of mine turns into a much longer post than I intended, so I know the feeling! Couple of quick responses; When these things get a little heated, for whatever reason, I find the wiki process somehow tends towards conflation and obfuscation of the key issues (principles?) - I think that's regrettable, and I see it happening here a bit. I don't have an opinion on whether or not 'IRC!' gets used as a smokescreen, and I don't wish to attribute bad faith to any users involved - indeed I think it's rather a shame that the admin involved has headed off onto a wiki break, and I hope she or he comes back refreshed and happy after a short while. I think it's just important to note that there is a clear tension between the consensus which seems to have been apparent at the admins channel (or in the mind of the individual, I guess), and the consensus decision of the community - those supporting the former seem to be finding themselves in the rather difficult position of having to maintain that the community might be 'wrong'.

Actually - that's not a bad way to frame the central issue - an exchange occurred on the admin channel, which resulted in the decision to block, and an exchange occurred 'on-wiki' which resulted in the decision to unblock. Without wishing to turn up the heat unduly, it does seem relevant and important to me to examine if any of that tension is caused systemically. I guess the first step is providing a reasonable explanation for how a specific action (the blocking of Giano) was rejected by the 'on-wiki' community, and how the admin channel failed to accurately predict / represent that..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's more likely to be due to the blockee than the venue. Giano's block log suggests the same happens regardless of the venue at which a matter is discussed. There have not been just one arbitration case about Giano's conduct brought by the community, but several in which a decision was made on this aspect of his conduct and he was told the community's view that it was a problem, was reasonably evidenced. At RFAR/IRC, an unprecedented statement was made by complaining admins, that Giano has been "in effect untouchable" for his incivility. By not just one, but four separate users. This is unheard of otherwise. This is not the usual complaint, and should not be shrugged off. That is in effect what has just played out. Since the same happens when the matter is on-wiki too, and the "discussion" at the admins channel was strictly reasonable (involved admin reporting to others to form their own view), I'm inclined to see IRC as a non-issue here. The sole question is whether kwsn reasonably formed a view that calling another admin a "gnome-like stalker" was rude, insulting, disparaging, or the like. I find that a quite plausible thing to believe. If so, then it was quite within his right to act, since the civility parole says that "an administrator" may do so. And yes it is that simple. ArbCom enforcement is not discussion or rights and wrongs, but simply "was a remedy breached". Kwsn obviously formed a view that it was, and I think that view, while not agreed by all, was agreed by enough others to demonstrated it was a reasonable and thought-through one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having just checked out Giano's block log - I think I understand your point.. but there is an alternative interpretation to the one you offer which is important to consider; that Giano's blocks have just never sustained community consensus. Further; that the complaining folk you refer to were just kinda 'wrong' therefore about their actions. I understand that from some perspectives, the 'gnome-like stalker' comment is beyond the pale (and it may be worth referring you to mention of 'shit-stirring weasel', or 'get lost' being perhaps problematic too....) but I think you do hit the nail on the head when asking if the decision was reasonable and thought through. Given that the outcome was that the decision was unfortunately in some way incorrect, it seems sensible to ask if the forum for that communication was in any way to blame for that. Maybe there's simply no bigger issue here than just the recommendation that any admin taking an action which could clearly be seen to be somewhat controversial should just ensure they drop a note somewhere 'on-wiki' before committing themselves, and that they also try to be available for a little while afterwards too. I reckon that would solve virtually all the problems, and it's likely a way forward which all could agree on! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC suggestion

Reading some of the leaked comments and dialogue from the admins IRC channel, I'm surprised and dismayed by the sheer amount of profanity and coarse discourse going on there, apparently not adequately controlled. Although it may be debatable as to whether the channel is being misused for making admin decisions, it doesn't seem to be debatable that a lot of the discussion that goes on there is unprofessional and inappropriate and would never be allowed to take place on-wiki without some blocks being handed out. This doesn't reflect well on the project that we would officially permit this kind of behavior to take place. I would suggest, that instead of yourself and other arbitrators trying and failing to monitor the channel, that a better solution is simply to cast it off. Order it removed from Foundation servers and delete the IRC page. The IRC members can continue to chat on it, but as a privately run IRC hosted elsewhere. Before you're tempted to dismiss my suggestion, think in the long term, wouldn't this remove the problem of Wikipedia appearing to officially sanction the unbecoming conduct that is going on on that channel? Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A request

FT2, I know this may be something you find very difficult to do, but I think it is something very important. I know we're on a wiki, and anyone who's edited articles is used to being able to make all kinds of tweaks and rewordings and expansions and changes until the article is right. That doesn't work as well in conversational threads; in fact, the continued tweaking and modification of statements (particularly those that have already been responded to) is problematic. A few times in the past few days (and on previous occasions as well), I've noticed that your tweaks have included responses to comments made after your statement, or expansions or contextual changes in your posts. That serves only to leave the later reader wondering what the next person in the thread was going on about. I assume that this is only a reflection of your personal editing habits, but it isn't serving you as well when working in conversational threads. Please can I urge you, to either (1) preview and tweak before saving; or, when making changes after others have commented, (2) use strikeouts to identify what you've removed and bold what you have added, with a notation indicating the bold is text updated after a response. Thanks for considering this. Risker (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See #Preview above for Ryan P's humorous view on this and my reply. I do see the problem though, I will do what I can. In cases where one can expect every word to be picked over, the repeated reflection on every word to ensure it's saying what's meant and cannot be twisted or taken wrongly to mean other than as meant, is pretty unavoidable. I also recheck my words because of a respect for people who really do want to understand what's going on. It's widely seen as valued [86]. Re-editing is part of that process, and that seems just "how it is". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double standards?

The page over there is getting a bit long, so I wanted to ask you whether you apply "a user gratuitously includes in their posts, rude, disparaging, insulting throwaway labels for other users" to other people or not? I'm thinking in particular of people that act like this but do so towards "vandals and POV pushers", but sometimes, to put it politely, miss their target. Merely because Giano is a high-profile case, should he be handled differently than, say User:JzG? (Of course, Giano's sometimes caustic and belittling comments are directed at people who annoy him, not people he thinks are vandals or POV pushers, but the same situation applies). From your comment at JzG's request for comments, I think you do apply this to other people as well. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2#Thoughts from AGK. More to the point, would a request for comments (which I believe has never been done for Giano) have more effect than an arbcom sanction? You could say the arbcom election was effectively a canvassing of opinion, but maybe a request for comments would actually work here? Carcharoth (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Longish answer I'm afraid, but hopefully a readable one.

It's ultimately about every person's use of language, that's not helping to collaborate, but used to attack, upset, undermine, or corrode. Its about a culture amongst some established groups and users (on different sides of things) that this is okay and somehow praiseworthy even if it adds nothing to content and discourages other users from involvement. It applies completely to other editors too, and you'd probably be surprised how much I work in the background saying "no, that's not okay, change or else bad things are probably going to happen if you don't change. Talk to me, get help if you need it, ask others to advise, but don't do it." A lot of the time people understand it's trying to help them. Those who can't or won't, it eventually ends up on-wiki as warnings instead.

I give hugely of time and effort to do this - I put hours that as a living being, I will have only once in my life, to try and coax and convey that such things have to change on Wikipedia. Admin standards, user standards, dialog standards. All matter. Not doing so brings unfair blocks, unfair harassment claims, hurt feelings, and many other dysfunctions.

I'm after improvement, not placebos. And yes I do and have spoken to JgZ in private, who tries to listen more than Giano does, and has fewer direct sanctions than Giano does, which is why I have not had to act on his case yet. I hope I won't have to, but he knows (it's no secret) that if my judgement was that I had to, I would. I also spoke several times to Giano in private too, and for the same exact reason, to try and defuze the matter. And many others. Which is why you'll see my arb election wasn't just supported by some "usual suspects", but by a wide range, including an exceptional number of well known "difficult" or blocked users (Rambutan/Porcupine, Jeeny, Vintagekits, and both ScienceApologist and Whig on both sides of the pseudoscience issue), even by users I'd warned or blocked or who had been sanctioned at ArbCom, and so on. I'm willing to put the work in myself to try and help those who find it hard, whilst I feel they might be willing to change.

It's part of my view that we can improve this project and that this will feed through into better content and proportionately less need for disputes (including less use of extreme measures like arbitration) over time. As others do bot work and vandalism patrol for the community, I try to help or deal with tough cases in the background. Sometimes one can, sometimes one can't. One can always hope and try.

For JzG, I have had occasion to talk with him. That's his and my private communication, as my email dialogs with Giano remain his and my private communication. Respect that. But yes, they exist, and on identical grounds. However Giano is at a point where the community has brought him to Arbitration. I didn't; no arbitrator did. The community did. More than once, for the same issues. That's not "pure chance". The latest request brought no less than an unprecedented four experienced users stating these problems were real ones. I take that seriously, as a sign that multiple users assess his conduct as not-okay. Reviewing, I agree.

Although Giano is popular and JzG less so, talking to JzG I find he accepts more readily if he does wrong, and at times has taken steps to avoid it - asking others, venting in ways that are less harmful to the wiki, and so on. I'm working to help, there. Talking to Giano I mostly find bluster, games, and denial. He's never once said "yes, if I have an unhelpful negative effect on others enjoyment then thats something I would like to learn to avoid". That is more of concern. Ultimately bad conduct drives others away and poisons the well (as Doc G says). It ripples out. For those reasons it's not okay. The communal norm says good manner from one to another, good dialog, collaboration not attack, is important. In the entire existence of the project not one edit has been communally adopted long-term to say that it's okay for some and not others.

Giano has had my comments, like you say. I don't even want to polarize this "about Giano"; that just makes him feel attacked. It's about all who treat others roughly verbally and all who shout when called to account. Thats many users, not just one or two. Giano's an editor who has been directed to treat others better; when he does I have no other interest in him. It's the community's right to say that certain conduct is not okay. He's had arbitration cases and expressions of concern since 2006 or earlier. Now it's basically, "do it, or accept that there are sanctions if you don't or can't". If you can suggest any way to help him not unhelpfully mishandle or bully others or do the harm he does by his manner of speech to other users, I'd jump at it. I'd put the work in myself (and have) if he'd wish it or show a sign he would change it.

But it has to work, not just be "empty promises", and has to address his style of speech to other users. Do that, however it can be done, and I'd be happy beyond belief. Don't, and further sanctions are probably inevitable. The time when that wasn't the case, Giano decided to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. For years, not just months. God knows how many decent editors who didn't like that style, he drove off (hurt, discouraged) through his bullying tone and cleverness with borderlining and speech in that time, or how many were encouraged in the "let's attack others" habit from him. So that's now gone. Now months and years later, given that response to date, we're much more into "change or block". It's not okay, and Giano must finally deal with it.

Can we help him? Only if he lets us. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite a long response, so I can't reply to everything now, but you didn't answer my question about a request for comments and whether that would be helpful. In general, though, I find myself agreeing with parts of what you wrote and disagreeing with other parts or wondering whether you are over-stating the case. For example, you emphasize the time period and the "bullying tone", but from what I've seen there is not actually that much of that tone when you look through Giano's contributions. Not the amount that your reply here would seem to indicate. It is sporadic and, to my mind, no worse than other stuff that happens around here. Are we both missing something here? I've asked before (at the arbitration case) for diffs of actual unacceptable edits, but have only ever been met with comments about how his behaviour is unacceptable when viewed as an overall trend. Which I find concerning. There are lots of trends I could label as unacceptable, but the concrete evidence should be there as well (see JzG's RfC). There is also a hint of self-fulfilling prophecy and myth-making here. Giano's reputation (constructed by others, not just him) precedes him, and that makes it difficult for him. One more thing: I do appreciate your openness here, and the time you put into this, and your efforts behind the scenes. Thanks for that. Would you be able to do one more thing related to this and find that evidence, be it at an arbitration case or elsewhere? My main concern is that I have never found it difficult to work with Giano, and many others have equally been able to work with him, so what is really causing this? Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The irony is, I want to see him through this as much or more than anyone. But a person who brings the memories of the past as he does, is never going to see or handle that; for him it's "that person has role X so they must be an enemy, someone to be beaten, someone who will attack me if they can. And look, there they are! Must.. attack!" What a sad, pointless waste. And he's good at corrosive comments and then when called to account either claiming they weren't really uncivil, or loudly distracting by demanding people's heads ("the best form of defense is attack"). That's transparent power games and it's just got no place here. Which means inevitably those few who can handle his diatribes on behalf of other users, and will take in their stride being attacked, smeared or flamed if it happens, are the ones who end up doing so for others.

When the time comes he realizes I and others are actually on his side, but also there for other users too, he'll probably find it a lot easier. I'll come back to your other points in a bit, and will consider your question "what would most help" and links. For now whatever can be done, please do it. Because as said, right now it's pretty much at "change or block". The requests, reasoned posts, and pleas, by the community and many users to talk better, were there since 2006 and routinely rebuffed, ignored, denied. The thought of "if I have an unhelpful negative effect on others enjoyment then thats something I would like to learn to avoid" isn't there right now. Conclusion, asking and explaining doesn't work. End of the line on that direction of handling. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind both of you that when you speak of Giano that you are talking about a real person. I feel uncomfortable with the manner that you both are analyzing him. Debating about him outside of our normal dispute resolution process is not helpful to the situation, I think. My 2 cents. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FloNight - noted and to an extent agreed. I don't think ignoring that has been the case for either of us. If we didn't care about Giano as a person we wouldn't be recognizing the different sides of the matter and trying to help him and others in them. We're essentially in a way, trying to reach agreement and define the issues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point FloNight, and the same applies to JzG as well, though I would still appreciate input on whether a request for comments in Giano's case might work better than the current set-up. More generally, and not mentioning any particular person, why do we block and ban real people from Wikipedia who quite obviously can contribute constructively? At some level, that is a failure of the Wikipedia systems of dispute resolution, not the person who is blocked. Carcharoth (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because Wikipedia is a community and an encyclopedia. People who are one but not the other we can handle. People who are one, but damage or disrupt the other, aren't okay. The community is not just "those people Giano likes and who can handle his barbed sometimes-upsetting wit or anger". We have norms that say what is okay in encyclopedic content, what is okay for communal conduct. Giano knows these yet (in effect) my impression is, says "I could care less if I upset a few others, drive a couple of people off the project, give some users a bad time, demonstrate my command of English by finding ways to be hurtful that I can later claim weren't really bad or that you provoked me, make strident hyped-up demands and claims rather than consider my own impact and conduct, or add a negative tone that many people complain about. And if you complain, ***** you, you can be misrepresented and attacked too, regardless of merits of the case or reasonableness of tone". Unfortunately, it's very much not okay.

We need a fit both in content work, and in conduct work, or at the least, avoidance of significant problems in both areas. The analogy in business is "people-focussed or task focussed". It's a false dichotomy; you need both. An editor who is cordial but damaging to articles is a problem. But also, an editor who is great for articles but hostile to norms of conduct and constantly refuses to see the effects of their actions, can damage many many others' contribution. So the latter is not trivial. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to apologise to Giano and Guy (JzG) if either of them read this and felt they were, to use FloNight's phrase, overanalyzed. We can do that too much sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Flo's right. Cut out the unlicensed psychotherapy, please. Let's be honest: people are wanting to see insults, or they're not. I've got a great idea, though: talk to Giano to find out about Giano, and if he doesn't want to talk to you, then you could refrain from feigning expertise. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Majorly transcripts

(To FloNight) Were those recent, leaked transcripts from the ArbCom mailing list about you all's discussion of Majorly's personality accurate? I don't remember if some of those biting comments on Majorly's personality were from you, but if they were, then you were doing much of the same thing that FT2 and Carcharoth are doing here, except that they're doing it in the open. Perhaps that's the whole issue here, that they should be having this discussion by email. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason the poster on majorly's blog went away was basically, that (unknown to him) what was said on arb-l in discussing majorly, was actually majorly's own candid self-assessment, which majorly had no issue with and which he told everyone (including arbs) who asked. It therefore wasn't exactly a surprise to him as he'd said those words himself.

When that came out, the poster tried to attack majorly a second time, by attempting (via a deceptive log) to show he had been considered for desysopping. These messages were posted with a message that majorly was going to pay, that majorly was going to be made to kiss his ass, that majorly would be coerced to leave Wikipedia, and so on. Since that log almost immediately was shown to be a deception, nobody was very impressed with it. After those two attempts failed, the person trying to rile majorly left his blog and didn't come back.

Stepping back a bit, that's the second faked log in a short time (one was a blatent fake, the other had the entire context removed to give one sentence in which an innocuous word was then "replaced" by "desysop"). Together with the faked IRC log of December it probably goes to show that if someone purports to have a log of anything in future, people're going to have to always check facts or ask what was really said.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If the leaks were faked, and I'm not going to dispute your word that they were, why didn't you all come out and say that immediately? Majorly even posted the leaked logs to his blog. If you all are forthright and honest in your communication of issues, that will head off a lot of controversy. If someone says, as I have, above, that the IRC is full of filthy language, instead of ignoring it, say something like, "the use of profanity on the admins IRC is unacceptable and I've accepted ownership for fixing the problem and am committed to exiling any admin who can't abide community standards there or anywhere else" or "if they don't clean up their act I'm going to throw the IRC off of Wikipedia and I don't care how mad it makes David Gerard" then you would receive some well-earned respect. Middling, avuncular claptrap isn't going to cut it, and I think you know that, because based on your responses to other questions, you carefully apply inductive and deductive logic to your deicisions and responses. So, please accompany your explanations with some decisive decisions. Whether they work or not, I think you'll be supported just because you're trying to do something. Cla68 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe FT2 did in fact post a comment on the blog that the log had been faked. Thatcher 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you. But, if so, something should have been said on-wiki also. And, something needs to be done about the juvenile behavior on IRC. FT2 has yet to respond to my concerns about it. FT2, if you aren't willing or able to stop it, then cut it off, throw the admins IRC off of the Foundation servers, be through with it, we don't need it. The logs are always subject to leaking, so the problem won't go magically go away. Will you always be willing and able to explain to anyone why we sanctioned such behavior on our dime? Cla68 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was said on-wiki. See my evidence on the IRC arbitration case. The majorly incident was (so far as I was told) on majorly's blog, and hence responded on there. As for the irc channel itself, that's separate from majorly's blog, I'll pick this one up separately if possible. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The en-admins channel is on Foundation servers? I was under the impression that the Foundation has no direct control of these channels, and only fuzzy authority to react to conduct on them. If you want to kill the channel, best to address Jdforrester or, I think, Sean Whitton? Avruch ^T 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's confirmed that the channel isn't on Foundation servers, then I'm going to propose deletion of the IRC page immediately, no joke. It shouldn't be on here if it has no "official" status. No kidding. Cla68 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The channel is hosted by freenode, and the foundation is not responsible for it. Majorly (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) All of the channels are hosted on Freenode, I believe, and not operated by the Foundation. The rules for connections, nicknames, chanops, conduct, etc. are established by Freenode and the person who set the channels up with Freenode, Jdforrester. Avruch ^T 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Links for reference are here and here. Avruch ^T 18:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As this is a sub-section a paragraph concerning me, I feel an urge to comment - I will ignore your amateurish, insulting and attacking amateur psychology - rest assured FT2 in the unlikely event I ever need a shrink, you will be my very last port of call. Now to business: To make things quite clear, though I'm sure you, FT2, are not implying otherwise, the logs, now circulating showing 1=2 (or whatever he is currently called) complaining of my comments regarding him, the instruction for the imposing of the block including the phrase "just don't use the reason per IRC" and the subsequent disruptive actions which followed, are genuine. Three copies from three continents prove that. These same genuine logs include an Arb, in the channel at the time, saying "I have to say, if I didn't know the roster, I would find it hard to believe sometimes that this is the administrators' channel." are 100% genuine and accurate. These are the same logs which you, FT2, reviewed and, astoundingly, found no problems. an interesting viewpoint, but then of course you reviewed the whole of IRC recently and informed us all that there were no problems there. Remember also, it was me who first spotted faked logs in December, and sent them straight to JWales - I'm an expert on logs. I am pleased the Arbitration Committee currently has such faith in you, and does not question your views. That must be very reassuring for you. Giano (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As said, inaccurate. You're taking discussion after the block, and mixing it in with creation of the block. However a clear reading shows about 7 lines of block discussion.

The user you called a "gnome like stalker" states he has been accused of stalking. He doesn't ask for a block, he doesn't mention a name; he doesn't even ask "is this blockable". Just states "I've been accused of stalking".
A second admin reviews it, and comments/asks if it should considered uncivil, citing the wording of the civility ruling you're under. Amazingly, he also doesn't ask for a block, or seek to obtain one. That's all he comments.
A third admin opines yes, it's uncivil.
At that point (and only then), does the reporting admin states he also thinks it is (which view he evidently held back to avoid biasing discussion). He also "goes the extra mile" and states that as the involved party it is "better left to others to determine". He reminds people that if it is, then "per irc" is not acceptable, which we drum into all admins.

That was the sum total prior to blocking. You were then blocked by a separate admin who took no part in any of the discussion and who reviewed the matter themselves. It contradicts entirely the impression anyone reading your account would get. I'm sorry if you feel this was some conspiracy. It wasn't. It was your own wilful ignoring of your own civility ruling, nothing more. You were uncivil, the matter was referred to others who opined it was uncivil, and you were utterly reasonably blocked for it. Even if suspicious, note that on-wiki a significant number of admins - including some who never visit irc - agree with this view of your manner to others. Everything else you discuss followed your - frankly unacceptable - attacking and were (as best I can tell) stimulated by that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"I have to say, if I didn't know the roster, I would find it hard to believe sometimes that this is the administrators' channel." Thanks for that insightful view FT2, with your interests in facts and research, probably best that you have realised your potential on Wikipedia. Stmulated? What on earth are you talking about? No, let's not go there. Giano (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't dispute FT2's account, but it solidly contradicts any account you've given of the event and its core issues. Maybe you can address specifically whether there is anything incorrect in FT2s summary of events on IRC above? Avruch ^T 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, FT2, you have exactly and precisely identified the problem. There was absolutely no reason for that discussion to take place on IRC, and plenty of reason for that discussion to take place on-wiki. We actually have a special page for those kinds of discussions—WP:AE. Are you suggesting it is acceptable for admins who participate in IRC to avoid community scrutiny of their discussions pertaining to blocks? That very same conversation should have taken place on-wiki, where someone might well have pointed out some of the relevant information before Kwsn made the block. Risker (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like he is saying the block was "utterly reasonable" and if that is the case... Does it matter where the discussion took place? Clearly there is no basis for an admin to assume that IRC discussions about Giano avoid community scrutiny, no one with any knowledge of the case remedies could believe that. Do we want admins to discuss controversial actions in advance so that we can critique their reasoning at some later point after a decision has been made, or so that they can get a reality check from those available to test ideas ahead of time? Avruch ^T 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - comment to Risker) If the discussion is proper, and fair, then actually it can take place anywhere. Our norm has always been for off-site matters, that whatever might be discussed off wiki, on-wiki matters must be justified on-wiki and not by reference to a consensus elsewhere. In this case, "any" administrator who feels Giano is uncivil may block him. That norm was upheld. Kwsn is an administrator, and obviously (and not unreasonably) formed the view Giano was uncivil. Admins may block users without discussion if they feel it merited - it's unblocking in fact that requires discussion. Whether you would have discussed on-wiki or not, in fact discussion was not needed to block at all. All that was needed was an administrator to form the view that this was uncivil, or bad faith. So questions of venue where the admin heard of the post, or whether or not it was discussed, are a bit red-herring-ish [insert: in the "not really relevant" sense]. There is no issue where they hear of it, nor obligation to discuss before forming a view "is that uncivil". There was no improper discussion that "avoided" scrutiny and in fact the sole discussion of a block was to affirm that blocks must be justified on-wiki. Kwsn should be held to the exact norms in blocking Giano that (for example) other admins face in blocking other users, and only a tiny minority of blocks are raised at ANI first rather than simply blocked by the admin making the decision. Had I been involved in that decision, I would have indeed advocated using, posted and explained at AE, but I'm not going to be a process wonk and suggest that the decision's merits revolve round where the note was placed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly in response to Risker. On-wiki actions should be justifiable on-wiki, and should be open to review by the community -- that's a useful mantra I try to follow. Off-wiki discussion is going to happen in a variety of forums no matter what anyone does, and is arguably a good thing in some circumstances, provided we keep studiously to the aforementioned ideal. In this case, the block was obviously open for community review, seeing as it was discussed and overturned on the wiki; I don't believe there's anyone claiming that the discussion on IRC was "final" or was ever meant to be so. I too would prefer an on-wiki post before or immediately after a block of this nature, especially in this case where the particular choice of forum is liable to create drama. Mixed feelings, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC server hosting

Could someone please tell me why the foundation, you know the one, that hosts the worst most successful on-line encyclopedia, can't host its own IRC server if it wanted to and why this wouldn't be a good idea given that we seem constantly to be butting up against this - freenode has its own rules so we can't change anything mantra? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For reasons of logistics, liability and responsibility that are quite different from hosting a website. These reasons have been discussed at length on other forums, particularly Foundation-l, and I'm sure you can track down the justifications offered by Brion Vibber among others. The decision is outside the remit of FT2, anyway, and any changes would certainly need a wider audience than his talkpage. Avruch ^T 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)11

I was asking the question for my personal illumination, and not specifically of FT2 as this appears to be a forum for discussion. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

are you saying that the logistics, liabilities and responsibilities of hosting a private irc space are more onerous than a public encyclopedia with chat threads on its talk page? I can hardly believe it - in fact I don't. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That argument and variations of it seem to be the main reason, yes. I don't know too much about how complicated it is to host a stable and high traffic set of IRC channels along with everything else, but Brion and others who have commented about it seem to know quite a bit. Avruch ^T 21:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I bet if we asked them nicely it could be done - certainly for en-admins apparently the most it ever has is 70 users - doesn't sound like high traffic to me compared to WP. I'd donate £10 to the server. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, I've also made that suggestion, back among my first questions when the community arb'ed me last year. If WMF can host the wikis on which people discuss, and the mailing lists on which people discuss, why not the irc channels where people discuss. In IRC terms the channels don't have unreasonable levels of usage, currently 130 or so text-only channels with 2000-2500 users (peaking at perhaps 2500-3000 at the moment). Reasons seem to be apparently in part a certain historic reluctance, plus also, who hosts the server possibly doesn't affect the dialog on them. Maybe there's other good reasons too that I didn't hear about. But FWIW I've asked too. Ultimately I concluded it doesn't actually make much difference though in practical day to day terms. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well for one thing - given that half of this thread has been about who's got legitimate logs or not - it would help. Furthermore, if we are to have community discussion about whether or not to have IRC reform, it would be good to not feel that we have one hand tied behind our backs by the rules of freenode. We need the independence. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's been much discussion of legitimate/illegitimate log concerns. As I've mentioned before, if there is ever a question, then getting accurate logs is easy. The issue's much more about whether irc is used as a coatrack. In other words, Giano has been asked numerous times about his actual conduct or had his approach to things criticized by multiple users - and yet his response to all these is to ignore the points others make in preference for a generalized "this is all a conspiracy!" claim, including claims that have been dismantled and then asked about (above) to which his answer is - no answer. And to strongly (perhaps ferociously at times) attack others.

This tendency itself is highly disruptive. To talk in a manner that uninvolved administrators might fairly form a view "that was blockable given the civility parole" is one thing. To then misrepresent the dialog as he does, then use that misrepresentation to holler about a conspiracy and abuse, to claim people are against him who have specifically said they are trying to help him..... to seek to avoid discussing the actual basis of his block, or conduct itself, which has now been discussed several times. Giano has exactly the same standards as all others to live up to, and these are outside them. If he cannot and will not find a way to change, then that's unfortunately going to be likely to lead to blocking or banning, is my assessment. because as a community we not only have a duty to help Giano. We also have a communal duty to prevent administrators being driven off the project for trying to assert norms that for all other users, are uncontroversial and everyday. In this case, norms are - civility parole is serious. Users sanctioned by Arbcom are expected to comply, change or will have the sanction enforced. Blocks need admin review but do not need wider discussion. Involved admins may report a matter to uninvolved admins however and wherever they like. Users who disrupt are expected to change; sanctions and blocks are tools to procure that. And so on. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But you must see FT2 that the inherent secrecy of a closed channel is as much the source of conflict as anything Giano may or may not do, and when challenged to reform, the main stumbling block appears to be the rules we are obliged to follow imposed on us by freenode. We have a crisis of confidence in some of our institutions that is unrelated to Giano's provocations. Did Giano provoke the !! scandal with Durova? or the cooked blocks of "a clean kill". Quite regardless of how Giano may deport himself, to suggest that everything is fine and dandy in the channel can only be taken on trust - but that trust has been fundamentally shaken by such events. I've been around for a while, and generally kept my nose clean - but I've seen good contributors treated appalingly by our institutions, so trust here is a little thin on the ground, and I'm certainly not prepared to sit by and watch it happen any longer. Rather than trying to build confidence, the institutions respond by vilifying an outspoken critic for his delivery - and even then it was a pretty weak consensus to do that. I can only see a further polarised community as a result of this refusal to adequately reform and notions of conformity with social norms are fraught with inconsistencies and fundamental subjectivities that are impossible to adequately define and hence result in very bad law. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2, as I see you are online, would you care to pick up our discussion here?--Joopercoopers (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you speaking, immediatly above, on behalf of the Arbcom or as an individual editor? Please just answer simply, (a) On behalf of the Arbcom; or (b) On behalf of myself. Thanks. Giano (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In discussing this case I am usually speaking as an administrator who has in the past warned you on your conduct, sought to address your conduct in private by email, on one occasion already, blocked you for your conduct, and is now examining another administrator's block and the circumstances surrounding it and your responses to it. These are all statements and comments any administrator might make, and several have spoken similarly. The "We" refers to "the community" not specifically to arbcom. We (communally) have a duty to help you, but we (communally) also have a duty to prevent the kind of handling you require others to take, and we (as a community) are not expected by any norm, to have infinite patience for users who cause harm as you do for no good reason and then try to bluster out of it. Others have made the point that ArbCom sanctions are in place and what that means. The rest is my own observations and assessment of the situation as an administrator who has significant experience of this long-running case now. If you want to talk I've invited that many times, and will continue to do so. Less hostility would help though. But as an administrator, my job is to see through the "puff" to the actual words. What I see is complete denial in hand with aggression, breach of our norms, and other users being hurt by you - and you know that your words hurt others and continue to do so. You attack others who try to prevent that misconduct. That's not okay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As to your conduct... to quote others:

"These comments are clearly uncivil and make an assumption of bad faith" (Will beback);
"You don't dispute FT2's account, but it solidly contradicts any account you've given of the event and its core issues" (Avruch);
"I think it is a real shame the was Kwsn has been treated for daring to hold Giano to the same standards as anyone else. Protect Giano if you must but do not sling mud at those who don't. But then, the civility policy does not apply to Giano, there are enough admins who seek to protect him from blocks at any cost to ensure that. Saying that blocking someone for engaging in personal attack while on civility parole is controversial is just baffling." (Until 1==2);
"The lack of warnings is a red herring here; Giano is certainly aware of the civility sanction (which is here). Moreover, since the sanction is based on a long pattern of incivility, signing off for the evening isn't a factor. This diff is enough, per the arbcom sanction, for a legitimate block." (CBM);
"Unlike an ordinary editor, Giano may be blocked whenever he edits in a way that a reasonable editor could interpret as a personal attacks, incivil, or assuming bad faith. To lift the block one must argue that no reasonable editor could consider the edits to fall into those categories - no other circumstances are relevant, and discussion before the block is not required in any way. This is a much lower threshold for blocking than for ordinary editors. It is also why the worry about the block being discussed on IRC isn't relevant - because the civility parole sets out a specific threshold for blocking" (CBM);
"Blocks are either good or bad, IRC doesn't come into it. You don't get to poison the well, and then complain about the water" (Doc glasgow).

To quote myself:

"...It's just got no place here. Which means inevitably those few who can handle his diatribes on behalf of other users, and will take in their stride being attacked, smeared or flamed if it happens, are the ones who end up doing so for others. When the time comes he realizes I and others are actually on his side, but also there for other users too, he'll probably find it a lot easier."

"...Giano's an editor who has been directed to treat others better; when he does I have no other interest in him. It's the community's right to say that certain conduct is not okay. He's had arbitration cases and expressions of concern since 2006 or earlier. Now it's basically, "do it, or accept that there are sanctions if you don't or can't". If you can suggest any way to help him not unhelpfully mishandle or bully others or do the harm he does by his manner of speech to other users, I'd jump at it. I'd put the work in myself (and have) if he'd wish it or show a sign he would change it. But it has to work, not just be "empty promises", and has to address his style of speech to other users. Do that, however it can be done, and I'd be happy beyond belief. Don't, and further sanctions are probably inevitable... Can we help him? Only if he lets us."

To quote the blocker:

"I blocked based off of warring on FT2's talk page. FT2 had commentted a comment by Giano out of his talk (with an edit summary saying he read it), and Giano kept on removing the comment tags. The 'stalker' comment didn't help much. I probably would not have blocked except for the fact he was under ArbCom sanctions for civility." (Kwsn)

To quote you - and lay bare the misleading descriptions you make of the case:

"He placed the block purely because he was asked to on IRC... Just another of those that...are a liability to the project. He had no idea what he was even doing. He needs to be de-sysoped" (Giano II).

I don't concur. Kwsn was not "asked" to block, nor would it be accurate that Kwsn had "no idea what he was doing". That sort of wild accusation of bad faith, personal attack and incivility, is precisely why we're discussing your social editing, here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holler?

"Holler", is it, FT2? That's what the regular user over whom you, as an arb, have so much power, is doing, according to you? You should be ashamed. You're out of control. You seem to have worn out any common human decency you started out with. Have you quite forgotten FloNight's warning that these are human beings you speak of? Moreover, you're the one misrepresenting the dialogue in en-admins—not Giano. I have the log from April 8, and will share with any user in good standing who asks, to show that this is what happened, and to show who the real misrepresenter is:

[08-04-14 22.41] <Admin 1> "sigh, I just got called a stalker." Pastes link.
[08-04-14 22.46] <Admin 2> "could that be counted as a breach of WP:CIVIL?..."Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling."
[08-04-14 22.47] <admin 3> "considering he is on a civility parole, was just blocked a couple weeks ago for violating it, yes"
[08-04-14 22.48] <Admin 1> "I think it is" Please note that admin 1, the original complainer, is telling people to find Giano's post a breach of WP:CIVIL two seconds after Admin 2 asks about it, and one second after admin 3 asks. You think there's a question of "review", at this speed, FT2? You think that "the reporting admin "evidently held back [his view] to avoid biasing discussion"? I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous. By ignoring the timestamps, you're misrepresenting who is requesting a block: it's Admin 1.
[08-04-14 22.48] <Admin 1> "but as the recipient of the insult, it is perhaps better left to others to determine" (same second again)
[08-04-14 22.48] <Admin 1> "just don't use the reason "per irc" Same second again. Obviously the last three posts have been typed out and are being rapidly posted one after the other.

Bishonen | talk 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC).

Comment, I corrected time stamps to UTC to make them easier to check and also to correlate with what was happening on-wiki before, during and after that. The format of these stamps are "yy-mm-dd hh.mm". Putting this together shows truly what happened. --Irpen 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't keep timestamps here. Only logs. Assuming those are accurate (which I'm fine doing) then wouldn't the better course of action have been to say so long ago and maybe ask those concerned for their comment? That's a specific point of fact that's capable of review long ago. It doesn't need to wait until this much is said, to suggest it. (Or did you only just notice it yourself, which sounds possible? In which case let's ask for comments on it.) First of all, just so there's no question later, can you double check one thing -- those look like "to the nearest minute" not "second" timestamps.

In other words the first two are 5 minutes, not 5 seconds apart; the last 3 took place within a 60 second frame not a 1 second frame, and it was April 15 not April 8. And "holler" means "To yell or shout. Informal. To complain". Exact correct usage for Giano's style of speaking, in the clause "holler about a conspiracy". The usage is precise; I've said before, I try to use words accurately. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just re-checked with Werdna, who had the same logs and logs to the minute, and pasted his version of them to me, showing these were dialogs taking place over a period of around 7 minutes, not 7 seconds. I think you must have misread them, Bish. (I've asked Werdna to comment so it's not just my word. Others probably have logs too). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that FT2 asked for, and received, an appropriate excerpt from my log. While my server's clock is 16 minutes slow, the logs did indicate that the discussion occurred over seven minutes, not seven seconds, and that the above excerpt is comprehensive, containing everything that was said on the matter at that time. — Werdna talk 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block, but I too can confirm this. krimpet ? 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Update, I re-read Irpen's comment carefully. He too says these are hours and minutes, not minutes and seconds. It looks like you may want to rethink your assessment of the log, Bish. And probably, your assessment of my representation of it. Do you want to withdraw your views here, and I'll comment it out of my talk page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I can also confirm from personal logs (I wasn't online at the time) that the transcript above is correct. The timestamps are in hours and minutes, not minutes and seconds. There was no more conversation at all for 6 minutes after these remarks. Considering that, in a course of 13 minutes, only two people responded, with one comment each, it can hardly be characterized as a heated discussion. The two remarks, moreover, were explicitly about the civility parole. It's probably worthwhile to look at the actual comment Giano made, [87], when judging whether an admin could reasonably consider it incivil, which is the criteria for a block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this what substitutes for reasonable dialog, now? "You should be ashamed. You're out of control. You seem to have worn out any common human decency you started out with." Really - talk about avoiding any possible chance of commenting on what actually happened, or anything of relative importance. When you accuse someone of having run out common decency, and then inaccurately represent events in order to support your contention, your comments... well, lack credibility. Irrational conclusions, jumped to based on inaccurate facts, are what causes these issues to spiral out of control. Avruch ^T 01:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see you, Avruch, rush to the defense of the way FT2 abuses his power as an arbitrator to lord it over a regular editor, under cover of loftily laying down the law. I would have expected/hoped to see you ask if his speech is "what substitutes for reasonable dialog". But I suppose power is bound to find supporters. My disappointment is probably a measure of how far the community is riven by this issue.

About the timestamps, I did indeed make a stupid mistake, sorry: these are minutes, not seconds. The type of time indication is unfamiliar in my part of the world, and I misread. The discussion of the snippet of log wasn't my main point—that was the lack of common decency in FT2's way of speaking, plus my reminder of Flo's warning that these are real people—however, a candid assessment shows that my minute-->second error scarcely affects my criticism of the way FT2 reads the log. Let me rewrite the vital part of my description, with minutes instead of seconds:

[08-04-15 00.46] <Admin 2> "could that be counted as a breach of WP:CIVIL?..."Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling."
[08-04-15 00.47] <admin 3> "considering he is on a civility parole, was just blocked a couple weeks ago for violating it, yes"
[08-04-15 00.48] <Admin 1> "I think it is." "but as the recipient of the insult, it is perhaps better left to others to determine" (still 00.48), "just don't use the reason "per irc" (still 00.48) Please note that admin 1, the original complainer, is telling people to find Giano's post a breach of WP:CIVIL within two minutes after Admin 2 asks about it, and within one minute after admin 3 asks. You think there's a question of "review", at these speeds? You think that "the reporting admin "evidently held back [his view] to avoid biasing discussion"? And that he "went the extra mile" in leaving the blocking to others, after showing so clearly that a block was what he was after? Your miles sure are short as soon as Giano is in question. Please stop this petty bullying now. Bishonen | talk 06:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

I appreciate your disappointment, but what I wrote was not a defense - it was criticism. Criticism of a type of interaction that is unhelpful and contributes towards the degradation of the community. I'll grant that there is history I'm not aware of that might explain your interpretation of FT2s remarks, but the emotional hyperbole is never constructive. All this arguing has to have a point, somewhere - you must have an objective in mind, and I can't see how accusing someone of having lost all common decency as a result of anything on this page will get you closer to achieving that objective. Thank you for your note on my page - I'll have to continue to form my own opinions, and past events out of context probably won't help, but I'm not the sort to rush to judgment and I intend to keep an open mind. Avruch ^T 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes; easily. Five minutes pass since the original post, easily enough for review. I could click on a link and decide that "gnome-like stalker" was or wasn't uncivil in about 20 seconds (just tested). Double click, wait for page, read 10 words, no further research needed since (in and of themselves) they are either uncivil or not. Obviously 1==2 did indeed hold his view back; he posted the link, waited 5 minutes and said nothing in that time. Obviously he had a view, yet only after hearing back from 2 others, some 6 minutes later, did he comment it. Self evident.

So yes, I stand by my analysis. I'm sorry Bish, but your initial hypothesis was based on a misreading and I'm surprised to see you trying to make a revised case like this. It just doesn't work. When I make a mistake and my previous belief becomes untenable, I actually stop supporting the matter I was mistaken on and revise my thinking. Which is why I checked the timings, in case you were right and I'd been mistaken. As you can see though, the initial analysis stands. Five minutes to decide that one diff is or isn't civil, is ten or more times longer than an experienced admin would probably need.

Try it yourself: here's a diff about the same length: [88]. Click and read. How long did it take you from start to end, to click on it and decide if that specific post was or wasn't civil? 10 seconds? 20? Maybe 30?

Here's another: [89]. Click and read. How long would it take a patroller from start to end, to click on it and decide if that specific post was or wasn't vandalism and "form a view" whether to revert? 10 seconds? 20?

The link was posted. Five minutes later - not five seconds - an admin asked if it might be uncivil and cites the remedy from Arbitration. Up to a minute passes and another admin comments it is in their view uncivil. And only then - and up to another minute later - does the reporting admin give any view they may have. Do you now agree the log shows that as being the timescale involved? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know FT2, I keep reading your posts of ever increasing length, answering this, answering that. The Arbcom are indeed fortunate that you are their main Wikipedia official spokesperson, I hope they don't eventually decide to cast you aside. One person is very lucky you are Arbcom's front-man - Me! Not so long ago we were being told KWSN was not even in the channel when the block was discussed, but the logs show he was - what next are you going pull out of your magic hat, I wonder. Giano (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Bishonen's reply though. Please. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got back from wikibreak, and I really don't like what I am seeing here. I see the worst violations of AGF here that I have seen in my time on Wikipedia.

I don't know how someone can read "I think it is, but as the recipient of the insult, it is perhaps better left to others to determine" in any other way than "I think it is, but because I am involved someone else should decide". Frankly I don't see how it can be read as "Hey guys, lets all conspire!".

There was once a time where I could make an off hand joke on IRC without it being thrown into the drama mill. The "per irc" comment was a joke referring to an unfortunate edit summary used on a block some time ago, a situation where the edit summary was given more consideration than the events at hand. I think it is tacky that it is being twisted into some sort of cabal. I joke all the time on IRC, but I need to stop the levity now as it is clear that people are logging the channel in secret and will twist anything I say as out of context as they desire to match whatever point they want to make.

I have not much more to say on this matter other than I have the logs myself and will freely admit to anything I said on channel that day. If you truly think I was out of line then take me before arbcom, but blaming IRC is silly.

I will also point out that there is no policy that says an admin cannot enforce NPA when he is the recipient of the personal attack. I did not need to seek conspirators to make the block, I sought advice because I felt it was better left to someone else. Now if we are quite done inventing battles to fight, I would like to get on with Wikipedia. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trees vs forest

The problem here is rather not the individual malfeasance of selected admins, but that it could come together only at IRC with it's specific bias of an admin culture. At AE it would be dead upon arrival more likely than not. 1=2 took it to IRC on purpose (I think) specifically after praising Giano on-wiki and after Giano's assurance that the issue is closed. Nevertheless that very minute he was at IRC resurrecting it. But even if I am wrong about 1=2's true intentions, his guilt is then in the distorted mindset of resorting to IRC for solving of problems that have to be solved onwiki.

Remember my post with examples of IRC malfeasances and your response devoted to their analysis? I figured, makes no sense to provide you with further details (sorry, I know it was impolite) simply because you judge this from the wrong end.

Reactions of Flo and you reminded me of Durova debacle and her afterthoughts. She was truly sorry and apologetic (and, note, I believe she was sincere) but for the wrong thing. She thinks that her only mistake (unforgivable by her own admission) was making a judgment error about !! rather than having a mindset that brought this all in the first place. She is very apologetic for making a bad analysis, she still does not see that a much bigger thing was wrong in her actions. Same here. This is a trees/forest problem. Who of us sees the trees and who of us sees the forest, we may never agree. This is where the community has to make its judgment but that judgment should hold rather than be brushed aside.

Later, I will post a detailed analysis of the on-wiki diffs interleaved with IRC entries (since log is now public). It will show the problem more vividly. In the meanwhile, I leave you folks here for several hours.

As a humble suggestion, I don't think it is a good idea for you to post to Giano's page even if the current dialog there seems in need of a comment. It is not that your opinion is not appreciated, it's just that Giano's page is not a good place for it. I would appreciate it though, if you post it here or feel free to email it. --Irpen 09:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To take the last point first, you'll see indeed I haven't. Not because I can't or shouldn't, but exactly the same reason you figured. Accomodating what can be accomodated; giving leeway with what can be given leeway. Hence readily agreed. As to AE - yesno.. 1==2 did not "take it" to IRC to "solicit" anything as best I can see. He reported it there because he felt it was unreasonable to be called a "stalker", a choice of words directly under Giano's control and nobody elses. He got feedback and reasonable opinions from two other admins that was a breach of civility, as others have since said openly on-wiki. If "an administrator" considers Giano to have been uncivil then he may be blocked. No action's validity changes depending on where it's initially brought to admin attention.

I think it's not so much wood and trees here. When people lay down defenses then one often has to address those point by point. The big picture I've given above is - Giano's conduct damages the community. Many users, over many months and years, have said to stop it; Giano's reponse to that is too often, to (as seems to me) attack, corrode, misrepresent, cite conspiracy theories and the like, rather than do what's actually asked of him - same content, different manner. He was already at Arbcom for doing this in 2006, and he's trying merely to continue doing it. It's now at "change or block" pretty much, because his approach is not "clever" or "witty", such comments do harm the community in multiple ways, and that's not okay. Many users have now been attacked simply for asking him to act as communal norms, consensus and standards applicable to others, require. Many administrators have been attacked for applying norms to Giano they apply to all others openly.

The response to that requirement is a huge number of smokescreens and distractions - that the venue of reporting is more significant than the action reported (never true elsewhere), that Arbitrators who have visibly said "just don't be uncivil to others is all thats asked" are trying to "attack" him, down to Bishonen's statement that 5 minutes is not long enough for the average user to click on a link of a dozen words and form a view if it's civil or not, hence it must be contrived. The reality is simple -- Giano's being held to the same norms as others, he doesn't like it, and he has adopted an apparent strategy that of trying to bluster, force, flame, distract, foul-mouth, and misrepresent his way, and to do it further, despite many users over many months saying "no, that's a problem for the project".

If Giano changes his style to avoid these things, he'll find nobody actually has any administrative interest in him beyond that and we can all get on with content. Until then it's for administrators to curtail him - forcibly if needed - when he cannot or will not do so himself. That was the request of multiple users at Arbitration and the decision of the Committee agreed it was reasonable as of 2008 for users to expect better conduct and to have sanctions set to help them obtain it if necessary.

That's the big picture - damage to the project. Driving away or discouraging of users. Encouragement of a style of dialog that can only make disputes less easy to reconcile, and result in time being wasted in argument (as it is now) than agreeing and moving on to content. That's the big picture. Not "which venue was a diff reported in". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think FT2 you have become rather fixated on me, your fixation is now bordering on obsession, and I'm wondering if it is healthy. I am begining to feel mentally threatened and attacked by your strange behaviour and posts. Please stop. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2, please don't stop.

I see no sign of any "fixation is now bordering on obsession", just an arbitrator standing up for the enforcement of community norms which have been the subject of repeated complaint and repeated arbcom cases.

Giano, If you feel "mentally threatened", the solution is in your hands. Start trying to be genuinely civil to those with whom you disagree, and to be quick to apologise for any offence which you cause, and then you'll find that there can be a rapid end to the endless discussion of Giano. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can see, you (BHG) and FT2 are far more political and adept than Giano. I'll be brutally honest here (with apologies to all), but Giano and Bishonen are sometimes rather naive in the things they say or the way they say them. You and FT2 are, in a word, much "smoother". But Giano's character comes across much more in his edits, which is probably one of the reasons he got so much support and opposition at the ArbCom election. I apologise for slipping back into "analytical mode" there, but one thing that should be pointed out is FT2's rather clumsy effort to include a "smokescreen" (as he calls it) posted by Bishonen (the minutes/seconds confusion) as part of his arguments about Giano. I do hope FT2 is not suggesting that Giano be censured for Bishonen's actions, or that the actions of others will impact FT2's views on Giano? And I might as well repeat here my request for evidence. See here. I have yet to see a clear statement anywhere of the evidence that Giano is "harming the project" (the most I have seen is vague handwaving and speculation), and I suspect that several arbitrators are talking themselves into this on the basis of past arbitration cases they may not have fully read. Carcharoth (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks on Giano

Excuse me for dropping in on the Giano dispute - normally I only get involved in science-related debates, but I have a general concern about subject-matter experts (R Physicist was the last - see his note on my talk page) being driven away from Wikipedia by bureacracy, process, and an obsession with borderline civility issues (see the recent ANI on R Physicist). Giano does not edit science subjects but he seems like an excellent editor, and the quality of his writing seems to inspire many others. Altogether he seems like a credit to this project. It does not help when you make these long-winded, incoherent and often illiterate attacks on him here and elsewhere. Giano is not a danger to the project, but I believe you are. I have also looked at your edits which are mostly process and bureacracy stuff, and not particularly a help to the project. I would be grateful if you stopped these personal attacks on a distinguished contributor to this project. Many thanks. The Rationalist (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC) (adding) E.g. you say The big picture I've given above is - Giano's conduct damages the community. That is an extremely rude and unpleasant thing to say about such a distinguished editor. He is a talented editor, he is an inspiration to the project, and you should not be making personal attacks on him like this. The Rationalist (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you didn't spot the 100 or so articles I've written myself, prior to ArbCom then? Or the hundreds I've made other contributions to? Arbitration is a process role, so it isn't surprising that 4 months into it, I'm doing more than the usual amount of process. And yes, I do edit science subjects to a high standard (or are you trying to say that only content writers may validly criticize the conduct of other content writers?) You unfortunately didn't check back before ArbCom (Nov 2007), it seems, which is an understandable mistake.

Thank you I shall take a look at these science articles then. The Rationalist (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) (added) Sorry I can only find a handful of edits in March 2008 on the Metric expansion of space. Where is your actual scientific work in Wikipedia, then. Are you a scientist? The Rationalist (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a concern about all editors doing good work, or being driven away or discouraged, not just a certain select few. Verbal misconduct drives away dedicated contributors no less than any other problems. Giano is an excellent editor, I agree, but must now address how he relates to other editors when he doesn't agree with their views or approaches. Wouldn't it be easier to say "yes, Giano was rude, he slipped, he shouldn't speak that way again, now lets move on from it"? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Who has Giano driven away then? I am not intimately familiar with his editing or interactions, I admit, but he strikes me as one who does not suffer fools gladly, FT2, and the less fools on this project, the better, don't you agree? The Rationalist (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano drove me away. Thanks for calling me a fool. I'd say more, but I've been told that I'm not allowed the same freedom to speak out that Giano has. --66.234.217.151 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? I think you missed my point anyway. What articles did you write? What did you contribute to Wikipedia? Drop by on my talk page if you want. The Rationalist (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly do I have to justify myself to you? Why should FT2? Is one Giano worth all the people he has driven away? Who speaks for them? I don't think it is helpful to discuss what we have given to Wikipedia. When we leave, you get nothing. --66.234.217.151 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you said I called you a fool. Who are you? I'll take a look at your work and what you have contributed to the project. If you have, I will concede your point. The Rationalist (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what I contributed, and many people reading this also know. You don't need to know. I'm not here to score points, I'm here to explain why I left. People claiming that Giano has a right to speak while I do not was one reason.

The community expressed their trust in FT2 by electing him arbitrator, an honor that they denied Giano. And now you demand that he justify his contributions to you. Who are you? --66.234.217.151 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But you haven't 'explained' why you left. You said you left because of Giano: that is not an 'explanation'. With every kind wish The Rationalist (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to post a lengthy explanation. Carry on. --66.234.217.151 (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon, without a context your statement bears no credibility. I can register a new account (or log out) and start posting that I was a massive FA writer driven off this project by... even Newyorkbrad, who has a record of utmost civility and consideration to other editors. I would really like to see a single example of an editor whose valuable contributions are no more here because of Giano. On a separate note, I would like to apologize to FT2 for not yet giving a detailed analysis of recent events I promised to him another day. I had a wonderful day-off outdoors and did not want to interrupt it for this stuff. I wish everyone to remember that some RL fun is still around, especially in this great part of the year with great weather, trees in blossom, brooks brawling and birds singing almost violently. Best wishes to everyone. --Irpen 07:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(to your added comment) I would give as my view that calling people "gnome-like stalkers" is not going to help the community. In fact it'll actively harm it, long term, if that kind of conduct continues as it has. More to the point I don't think we want a wiki where people are generally doing that. Nor is misrepresenting people who try to help him as "spiteful". These aren't good things, Rationalist. The community has asked ArbCom to provide a means to stop them, and we have done so. If he stops his harmful manner of speech to other users, then oddly enough, no administrator has a further interest in him. He isn't the first person to wish to edit with bad conduct to others, and then complain heatedly when prevented. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rationalist, while I agree that it's better not to "psychoanalyze" Giano or anyone else, FT2's assessment of Giano's behavior that you quoted isn't a personal attack. It's the frank opinion of an arbitration committee member who has spent a significant amount of time deliberating on the situation. I recommend reading through Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC and its subpages to see the basis for the comment you quoted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Analysing someone in that detail is going to come across as a personal attack, and there is also a pompous air to it that many people would find annoying or irritating. Were it not for the rather amateurish nature of the psychologising, it would be quite intimidating to a lesser person than Giano. The Rationalist (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC) On 'gnome-like stalker' what is the problem with this? The Rationalist (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I also wondered who Giano did call a "gnome-like stalkers", which you said 'is not going to help the community'. This was the editor called 1=2 or some illogical thing like that - someone who can't even add up. I had a look at the first 200 edits of this guy, and he seems mostly to write about cannabis smoking. While this might explain the poor mathematics, I can't frankly see why he would be a great loss to Wikipedia, or why calling him a 'gnome-like stalker' would not in fact help the community. FT2, you seem to be the leader of this civility cult that seems to grip the place (to the extent that a prize-winning physicist was driven out of the place for remarks that were deemed to be 'inappropriate' or something like that. Incivility, if not extreme, has a place in this world, and sometimes fools must be told that they are fools, to discourage les autres. Do you agree, FT2? Sorry if this comes out as a bit extreme, and I suppose you will think it uncivil, but I am still annoyed about R Physicist. Did you have anything to do with this eminent scientist's departure, FT2? Did you try and prevent it? I put a lot of work into that (see my talk page). I didn't see any of you bureacrats around. The Rationalist (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think you're confusing the reasons why people leave.

Also, I don't think its completely consistent to begin a section by decrying personal attacks and then say what you just said about 1=2. I have no major opinion on the subject, but perhaps you should familiarise yourself with his complete history. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on someone's contributions is not generally a personal attack. Making disparaging remarks about them as a person generally is. Seeing as your comments about 1==2 add nothing to your case, please consider if they should be removed.

I'm also not sure why FT2 has to justify his contribution record to you. Even a cursory reading of his history shows he is a longstanding and valued editor. As is Giano and as no doubt are you. Your opinion of FT2 is clear in your posts above. Now that we've all noted it, what outcome are you seeking in continuing this discussion? Euryalus (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I was just asking why someone who appears to have no contribution record at all apart from one he mentioned, which happened to be mis-spelled, should be lecturing in this condescending way to Giano. I have simply asked what articles FT2 has contributed to (he mentioned he contributes to science articles). He hasn't actually demonstrated this. Does he have to demonstrate this? I think so, if he persists in making these virulent personal attacks on distinguished contributors to the project. Giano hasn't written anything further, so it seems that it is FT2 is disrupting the project. Why hasn't he been blocked? The Rationalist (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And why do my comments about 1=2 add nothing to the case? He appears to have contributed little of value apart from articles about cannabis, which we safely assume are of little value. So my comments add a great deal to the case. Here are two 'editors' on the project, FT2 and 1=2, who don't actually do much at all, as far as I can see, attacking an editor who has contributed a great deal. Seems to be a bit upside down. The Rationalist (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you do not know all of 1=2's history, so I suggest you tone that part of your criticism down. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A request

I am finding your behaviour now seriously worrying and threatening. I ask you not to mention by name on Wikipedia, one more time. Thank you. Giano (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really something you'll get until you change your manner of speech to other users. Your fastest way to get that will be as said above: "If he stops his harmful manner of speech to other users, then oddly enough, no administrator has a further interest in him.". I strongly recommend that as the best route all round for everyone.

(The alternatives, "ignore", "block and don't discuss", or "Giano gets to flame and accuse others, but others must be silent and not rebut", don't really work in administrative matters.)

Engaging in behavior which is reasonably considered inappropriate by norms, doing this long term including under ArbCom parole, and then complaining that you feel "worried" and "threatened" that administrators seem to mysteriously not let you freely do so, is disingenuous.

I'm not much into playing; in fact I'm not into playing at all. The behavior for which you were sanctioned stops, or it's likely you'll receive more blocks. I would like that not to be the case, but you're the one who can - and must - choose it. So this is also, a further request to cease and accept the consensus norms of the wider community, and warning that it's not really negotiable long term. So far you've tried a wide range of strategums (strageta?) to avoid this simple responsibility, including attacking those calling you to do so. The conclusion is that administrators who wish to do so must expect and handle such attacks and diversions, and take them in their stride. The administrative issue stands. Please consider your manner to other users carefully, in order to avoid further issues of this kind, and avoid administrative attention and waste of all our time. And, ultimately, because if there are too many blocks, the maximum duration rises significantly to a month.

strategemata The Rationalist (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, the purpose of these is to encourage a necessary change to a less harmful manner in future, deter problem mannerisms from continuing, and thus protect the users and community who it may affect. If blocking cannot achieve those goals, then it may be that there is no way to communicate the necessity other than by removal. That is why you are being asked to change now (and have been many times by others), and to use your undoubted English skills in a way that does not contravene norms, parole, and expectations. If you honestly cannot do so, then ask for a mentor or say so. Take advice from friends privately. But don't bluster, or attack. It isn't going to help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that this has been brought to WP:AN/I. Avruch ^T 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It has? Can you provide a link? Carcharoth (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC and Freenode

All this time, I thought IRC was hosted on Wikipedia servers, which was why I thought that the channels had "official" status on Wikipedia with their own page. Now I find out that they're actually hosted on separate servers, called Freenode, which isn't part of Wikipedia at all. Knowing this, I don't see how these channels can have any kind of official status in the project. I'm planning on nominating the IRC page for deletion based on this inescapable fact, that how can something have official status that you don't have absolute, administrative, legal, formal, etc control over, which we apparently don't? Before I do that though, I'm posting here to see if there's an issue involved that I've overlooked and might persuade me otherwise. Cla68 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All Freenode IRC channels with 'Wikipedia' in the title (and more i'm guessing) are controlled by the Wikimedia community through the Group Contacts Jdforrester and Sean Whitton. Also, foundation gives financial support to freenode. The channels are an 'official' part of the Wikimedia community in almost every way, although certain people who want their own little kingdom and a convenient excuse to ignore complaints from the community, especially when it comes to #admins, will deny this. --Duk 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Some channels are fine, some are not. The point is that some processes have sprung up associated with Wikipedia where it is very hard to drive change. There is an immense amount of inertia in the system. Policy pages are one (but the inertia is a good thing there), bot operations is another (though things are changing there), and IRC is another (though again, hopefully things have stated to change here as well). Carcharoth (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Where has anyone indicated that IRC is considered official? John Reaves 06:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This page Wikipedia:IRC channels sure makes it look like it's an official part of the project. If it's not official, then it should be in someone's userspace, not mainspace. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, if it is official, then it belongs to the community, which means we can insist that it be run professionally. Judging by the profanity and vulgarity in the leaked logs, it isn't. I'd say that we need to hold Forrester and Whitton accountable for what goes on in there if they're willing and able to administer it according to community standards. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not official and moving it to someone user page would be kind of pointless. What about a soft redirect to Meta? As it isn't official, the group contacts are welcome to administer it however they want. It should be noted that IRC is out of the hands of the community itself but is in the hands of several members of the community. John Reaves 06:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you say these channels are officially not official, except that they pass the duck test with flying colors for being an official and integral part of the community. How convenient, all that influence but with no responsibility or accountability to the community. Hell, just look at that fiercely authoritative reference given here as proof; "The board did *not* at any time appoint IRC Group Contacts". Was the board even in existence when the first wikipedia IRC channels were started? --Duk 07:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how exactly do you intend to officially regulate e-mail and Skype? John Reaves 07:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the price of rice is definitely going up. --Duk 08:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Either the community takes ownership of the IRC and demands that it be run in a professional manner, or the page gets deleted or moved to userspace and the community makes no attempt to regulate it. Any middle ground will only allow more problems to occur because no one is being held accountable for running it according to our standards. Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. John Reaves 08:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Cla - first section at WP:IRC is WP:IRC#How_is_Wikipedia_IRC_related_to_Wikipedia?. I think that makes it clear what the relationship is. Wikipedia project pages describe many "unofficial" things that are of relevance to users, so unofficial is no real issue. The fact that the hosting is not done by WMF doesn't really affect their communal usage. Do you really think there would be any change (either way) to control or accountability, if the actual servers were/weren't hosted by WMF? This was one of the first things I looked at, on ArbCom. Conclusion - irrelevant. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, in one of the commentaries surrounding the endless series of IRC-related arbitration cases, UninvitedCompany wrote a lengthy and detailed essay on exactly how the community could in fact take over management of IRC. A brief and incomplete (but hopefully basically accurate) summary is this: Freenode will deal with one person as the official top level contact for all wikipedia-related IRC channels. Freenode would probably reassign group contact status to someone else if there was broad community consensus to do so, meaning in practical terms first a substantial policy change to make group contact an elected position, followed by the election of a new group contact. Presumably with elections the community could choose from among various platforms ranging from no change in management to actually closing the channels. However, no one in the community (notably, none of those most involved in raising IRC drama) have actually attempted to do this. I would strongly suggest not attempting to delete the WP:IRC page without thoroughly reading the ~~Giano~~ IRC arbitration case. However, if you think you can move the community to officially take over IRC, I suppose you are free to try. In the meantime, we seem to have recurring IRC drama that rises and falls with the tides (or perhaps the full moon) that tends to have as its components, 1/ rehashing of old problems that everyone agree were problems, 2/ magnification and misrepresentation of minor recent issues, abetted by 3/ logs that are either deliberate fakes or misleadingly edited by removing context, along with 4/ a few legitimate current complaints that 5/ get hashed out on Wikipedia with maximum dramatic effect.

FT2 and some other admins got together and said, essentially, "IRC regulates itself, but we are all admins who believe the channels should serve the project's goals, let's get together the admins who are channel operators and make some new rules for ourselves and our channel to help improve the situation." Finding that FT2 was not able to turn lead into gold overnight, there is now an effort to tar and feather him. This is reminiscent of the current situation on WR where certain parties have decided that even though Newyorkbrad is universally regarded as one of the "good guys", he hasn't done enough to address their pet complaints, and so he must be driven out. The approach hardly seems productive. Thatcher 12:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No Thatcher, it is nothing like Brad's current problems, and it cheapens you to suggest otherwise. Tha Arbcom voted and promised to address IRC review. They did not, they have not. Giano (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Several channel operators, one of whom happens to be an arbitrator, took it upon themselves to institute reforms. FT2 is now being battered because the reforms did not go far enough, fast enough. It seems to me that you should be talking to the arbitrators who voted for the principle but have not taken any action, and it seems counter-productive to be giving FT2 incentive to wash his hands of the whole affair. Thatcher 13:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher is making some good points here (and I'm sorry to hear that Newyorkbrad is having problems with WR). I too am disappointed at the way my request for clarification here got limited response (I'm grateful that Ryan and some of the arbitrators did respond, but it wouldn't have been too much effort for the other arbitrators to drop a note saying they were aware of this but were chosing not to respond or were happy to delegate to others). I did ask the arbitrators directly if they had delegated this to FT2, and Paul August confirmed that this was not the case. Thatcher, should I asked the other arbitrators again if they would like to say something, as I did here? I also see that Kirill has piggy-backed a separate motion on the back of my request - is that normal procedure? - but has not commented on the main request I posted. Does that count as not taking any action? Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The clarification request is still open at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions. You are free to ask the arbitrators any question in any forum you like. I don't know whether it will have any impact, however. The fact that FloNight's proposal to establish a working group fell flat suggests that there is not going to be a movement from within Arbcom to take strong action, despite any votes cast in the IRC case, but I am merely speculating. Thatcher 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the community elections for Freenode contact, I am prepared to initiate and help with the process, but only if (a) others help, and (b) there is some indication of support or interest in this from the Arbitration Committee. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one would be interested, but do feel a need to point out that ArbCom doesn't seem to have the authority to act, here -- the freenode group contacts claim to represent all WMF wikis, not just en.wikipedia. I say "claim to" because it's not yet clear to me how this authority was ever derived. To meta, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing that has been overlooked in this discussion is that there is now a set of behavior guidelines] for the admins channel, which was written and ratified in March. I don't see that these guidelines would be any different if the channel was run by the foundation instead of being run by freenode; it seems likely to me that changing the IP address of the IRC server would have very little effect on the IRC channels themselves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was an internal matter. If anyone working on that had asked certain people first, they would have been told that the best way to avoid future conflicts would have been to involve more people in that process, rather than it being an internal process. Too late now, but do you see my point? Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the guidelines linked above would look significantly different if more people had contributed to them? In what ways? I think that some people who oppose IRC on principle are likely to oppose it regardless of the rules in place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but I do remember my feeling of surprise at stumbling across these new guidelines some weeks later. It's more a matter of the follow-ups being recorded somewhere on-wiki. For example, at the case pages? I've suggested this in the past, but there is only really a place for blocks and bans to be recorded, not other stuff. Post-case clerking is rather spotty at the best of times - for example, do requests for clarification get recorded back on the case pages? See below for something else I missed entirely. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention... (sorry, FT2, but as there is no real page to point out things like this any more, I thought people following this thread should know about what happened in the channel a few weeks ago (someone's access got removed and there was a big furore) - I presume it is still OK for people on Wikipedia to follow what happens in IRC?). Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing the threads together

Life is short. I've summed up below the main themes and responses to points raised above. What's obviously going to be unmanagable is

Threads that sprawl and spawn endlessly without resolving (the aim is to narrow down and then hopefully resolve issues)
Allegations made on bad faith (nothing can solve a problem if it's based on bad faith assumptions)

If a new topic needs raising please open a new subsection. if it's a response to an existing topic please consider the existing dialog there and take it into account.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility and good faith

In brief, this is a long standing issue raised by many users over time, and it shouldn't be necessary to argue whether one user is expected to act reasonably to other users when it's communally accepted to apply to all. A search through the block log and associated talk page notices, will show that

the prevention of recurrent or egregious incivility is indeed a widely held and followed communal norm,
incivility alone is routinely considered a problem even when there is nothing else going on,
admins routinely assess and deal with incivility on their own assessment, without communal consultation,
conduct that disparages, snarks, attacks and maligns other users is uncontroversially a matter for administrators, when others engage in it.

Additionally

The policy WP:CIVIL has never long term sustained even one edit to the effect that it applies to established users less than others, and
arbitration enforcement is a summary form of sanction; when it's said "any administrator who forms a view that X", it means exactly that. Cases come to Arbitration to form a decision, exactly because other forms of consensus-seeking on the matter have consistently failed.

The incivility policy goes back four years; its roots go back way before that. This revision from 2004 was fairly stable, and sums up the issue and damage done.

Incivility is not a "victimless" act. It drives users away. It encourages an atmosphere where attention is dragged to issues that don't directly support content writing. It discourages and disheartens people. It drives people away if repeated enough. It is routinely blocked for, warned for, and upheld at every form of dispute resolution as a problem if it persists. Users who cannot be civil, though they may have much to add, are undermining a foundation of the Wikipedia community that writes the project, driving away or discouraging future contributors, and ultimately do significant harm in this way.

The protective use of such blocks, and the damage caused by such conduct not being inhibited, is emphasized and re-emphasized in policy pages. In some cases it is possible to point to specific harm done, in other cases one must note the constant theme throughout the life of the project that incivility is not really acceptable and should be reduced in favor of collaborative respectful discussion of communal issues, and the wide range of users who endorse the policy in their words, warnings, and actions. If anyone feels that incivility is harmless and redundant, does no damage, that users who can't take witty, clever or barbed comments are somehow themselves at fault for it, the place to take all of that is Wikipedia talk:Civility, and see if a consensus exists. My impression is it does not.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Civility is something that, as of late, people don't seem agree on. What is civil, what is not? Admins are picked for their judgement, and are expected to use it. We should not tolerate any incivility here, as FT2 says above, it does drive people away and does cause a negative and / or hostile environment and nobody should have to deal with that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that it can be hard to find the line of civility, many uncivil comments can be seen as such objectively. I am reminded of this essay for some reason: Wikipedia:You spat in my soup!

The essay is about how people can use the idea that something is poorly defined as a defense, even when it is clear that the idea applies. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This specific incident

Carcharoth stated "Giano's character comes across much more in his edits, which is probably one of the reasons he got so much support and opposition at the ArbCom election...", asked for confirmation that Giano isn't being handled on the basis of Bishonen's (or anyone elses) comments, and a request for evidence of harm being done.

Dispute history/evidence - Giano got much support and much opposition in the arb election. Wikipedia isn't a battleground, ideally it should be quiet simple calm quiet writing of an encyclopedia. Whilst helpful criticism stated in a constructive manner is useful, other kinds are damaging. The supports and opposes are instructive; Giano received by far a higher number of opposes than any other candidate, and all pretty much saying the same thing - unnecessary drama creation, poor judgement, unhelpfully provocative (helpfully provocative would be different), uncivil, serious conduct issues, non-neutral in disputes. Barely 2 weeks later the IRC case opened, at which Giano was criticized by multiple users for breach of communal norms, and requests were made for his behavior to be contained. This was far from the first time, even back at Arbitration in 2006 the same type of issue was present ("Giano then, aided by a few others, entered on a campaign of political struggle"), with a similar request on behalf of the community ("He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat"). This was a different ArbCom, different users presenting evidence, same broad conclusion, two years ago. I look at Giano's words and manner now, and I agree, they are unacceptable by communal norms; users' fair expectations aren't being met; he's had two years and failed to do as was asked. To me, the repeated requests by users are an indication there is a problem; such volume is not at random and unlikely to be some "anti-Giano conspiracy".

We have norms about how users speak to each other, and any user is entitled to expect the community to back those equally across the board. My feeling also is that Giano speaks in a manner that a user could reasonably consider uncivil, bad faith, or personal attack; my observation is that many users do so, and that it harms the community. It drives users away, discourages users from believing we act fairly to all (if some can get away with it despite requests), encourages other users to do likewise, encourages an atmosphere that detracts from content writing, and so on.

Bishonen's issue - Bish made an honest mistake. Of course it's now come out that Bishonen originally misunderstood the log and thought it all took place in 7 seconds(!) But her handling is instructive; "out of control", lack of "human decency", "the real misrepresenter", and so on. When pointed out that in fact she'd misread the logs by a time factor of 60, and over 5 minutes had lapsed (not 5 seconds), she continued in the same vein. The questions I posed, which anyone could use to test the reasonableness of the timing, she ignored. I posted a request again; still ignored. Bishonen describes the original complainant as "telling" others to find it uncivil, but in fact anyone can read the snip and see that only after 2 others had opined did the reporting admin give any view at all on it. The actual communal norm, that any admin may make such a decision, is ignored completely.

The blocking admin, who was not even part of that dialog, was attacked to the point they semi-retired, for what was a completely correct action, namely forming an administrative view on an edit, and acting thereon. Communal norms always have been that it doesn't matter so much where a matter is brought to admin attention; what matters is that those who act, vote or edit on-wiki take personal responsibility for their actions and don't "block !vote" or use some nebulous "consensus" elsewhere to justify it. None of these took place. The civility parole (like all civility paroles and restrictions) states "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith...". That's a routine decision admins make all the time. Giano has it no different from any other restricted editor. If he doesn't breach this, then he'll find no administrator cares much about him any more.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Others' views

A summary of other user's comments may be found based on this diff [90].

As to Giano's conduct, it is clear there is a sustantial view that says Giano has spoken to others in a manner that's uncalled for. To quote others:

"These comments are clearly uncivil and make an assumption of bad faith" (Will beback);
"You don't dispute FT2's account, but it solidly contradicts any account you've given of the event and its core issues" (Avruch);
"I think it is a real shame the wa[y] Kwsn has been treated for daring to hold Giano to the same standards as anyone else. Protect Giano if you must but do not sling mud at those who don't. But then, the civility policy does not apply to Giano, there are enough admins who seek to protect him from blocks at any cost to ensure that. Saying that blocking someone for engaging in personal attack while on civility parole is controversial is just baffling." (Until 1==2);
"The lack of warnings is a red herring here; Giano is certainly aware of the civility sanction (which is here). Moreover, since the sanction is based on a long pattern of incivility, signing off for the evening isn't a factor. This diff is enough, per the arbcom sanction, for a legitimate block." (CBM);
"Unlike an ordinary editor, Giano may be blocked whenever he edits in a way that a reasonable editor could interpret as a personal attacks, incivil, or assuming bad faith. To lift the block one must argue that no reasonable editor could consider the edits to fall into those categories - no other circumstances are relevant, and discussion before the block is not required in any way. This is a much lower threshold for blocking than for ordinary editors. It is also why the worry about the block being discussed on IRC isn't relevant - because the civility parole sets out a specific threshold for blocking" (CBM);
"Blocks are either good or bad, IRC doesn't come into it. You don't get to poison the well, and then complain about the water" (Doc glasgow).

To quote myself:

To quote the blocker:

To quote Giano discussing the blocker:

"He placed the block purely because he was asked to ... He had no idea what he was even doing. He needs to be de-sysoped" (Giano II). Note the bad faith assumptions and attacks (emphasis added), especially in the context of the above prior explanation by the blocking admin. This is what's not okay.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Carcharoth asked for confirmation that Giano wasn't being "tainted" by the actions and statements of others.

It shouldn't need saying but glad to confirm. Indeed, Giano is only answerable for Giano's own posts and actions, nobody elses. The actions of others are not being cited in any way as being Giano's own conduct. Bishonen stated she had evidence of abuse, and this was immediately investigated - not just my own logs, but several other people's - before I noticed that Irpen himself had stated it was minutes, not seconds. That fact should be good evidence that when a credible claim was made, I looked into it seriously. I immediately asked for evidence from others to double-check if Bishonen was right, which would indeed shed a dark light on it. That alone should be good reassuring evidence the conduct of both sides is looked at neutrally. I was immediately willing to check if Bishonen was right. However the credible claim of Bishonen quickly turned out to be a misreading of the timestamps. Had Bishonen been right, there would be concerns and I'd have had some rather tough questions for a number of users. But Bishonen was mistaken as she admits ("The type of time indication is unfamiliar in my part of the world, and I misread").

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC and its ownership

As CBM says, "One thing that has been overlooked in this discussion is that there is now a set of behavior guidelines for the admins channel, which was written and ratified in March. I don't see that these guidelines would be any different if the channel was run by the foundation instead of being run by freenode; it seems likely to me that changing the IP address of the IRC server would have very little effect on the IRC channels themselves."

I've looked into this (stated above) - nobody has made even one concrete suggestion how the hosting service used would change the opeation of any channels. At present Wikimedia related IRC seem to host around 130 channels with 2000-2500 (peak ~3000) users, covering everything from technical support, to BLP protection.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If the WMF hosted the IRC channels on their servers, then actions there could have consequences on wiki, meaning that a person could be blocked on Wiki for their actions on IRC. Some would see that as a good thing. Right now, taking action on a person for deeds done or plotted on IRC is like blocking a person for something they did anywhere offsite. Blocks like these are sometimes done, but they are usually controversial, and there is always a gray area. Knowing that a person could face consequences on wiki for their actions on IRC would prevent some of this IRC drama, in my mind. How exactly sanctions would be handed down to editors in the hypothetical case of the WMF hosting IRC channels is another issue.

That said, there is a reason that the WMF does not host IRC on their servers--the WMF is a non-profit whose mission is to provide free content, not run IRC channels. I speculate that the WMF does not host IRC channels because of the drama any IRC channel tends to spawn. They want the "good" that can result from these channels without dealing with the "bad". Who can blame them for wanting to be in a position where they are not responsible for IRC? I certainly sympathize, but the long term consequences of this laissez-faire attitude on the project, such as driving off content contributors, should be considered before the WMF waives responsibility. daveh4h 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted to block people for on-IRC comments we could do so now; freenode running the servers has no real effect on that. But I don't believe there is any sort of agreement that we should block people for on-IRC activity. Misbehavior on IRC alone leads to loss of access there; misbehavior on the wiki leads to blocking on the wiki. The two are essentially independent. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your points. There is currently no agreement that blocking (or desysopping) for actions on IRC is the right action. You are also right that one could theoretically be blocked here for actions on IRC right now, but as you also note there would be disagreement. However, the most recent IRC dramas boil down to people that have grievances that cannot be settled in an "official" way on wiki because the IRC channels have an unofficial status, as a result of them being hosted on Freenode. If they were hosted on WMF servers there would be less confusion over its status and there would be less disagreement over sanctioning a person on wiki for IRC actions. As it is now, settling grievances takes the form of edit-warring, posting IRC logs, and other disruption. As much as I hate to add more process, I wonder if setting up a way to resolve IRC disputes that spill on wiki may be the answer. You could not do that now because its status is unclear, at least to me. I'm not convinced that it is beneficial to the WMF in any way to host these channels, but I believe doing so would reduce the confusion of the admins channel status (in particular) and reduce disagreement over what action should be taken when IRC disruption spills on wiki. In short, disputes could be settled in a more efficient way by reducing the current confusion and hosting the IRC channels on WMF servers would be a good first step (again, I do not know if I endorse this, because it is not the job of the WMF to host an IRC network). daveh4h 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Making it absolutely clear: if I came across something I felt was a cause for communal concern, I'd raise it myself (and have done so). I might act myself also, or simply let the community know it. I'm serious about these things, and they are not said lightly. I've looked into every case brought to me, and a couple that weren't. There haven't been that many. One case that I judged did need to be brought to communal attention -- so I did so. So much for "secrecy". This case itself shows that when a user (even a hostile speaking user) says "here is evidence" that would overturn my understanding of the case, I'll go check that out for real, with tough questions and a likely ANI report if it turned out to be right. (It wasn't.) So much for conspiracy and bias. Almost all the cases I've checked, though, turned out to have been misreported or exaggerated on-wiki in some way, or lack judgement or full information/context, and in such cases, that's what needs bringing to communal attention.

See #Evidence that IRC issues are carefully investigated and fully reported, and... followed up below. See also #En-admins and #Explicit invitation below, too. If blocking, warning, or desysopping was appropriate (with communal discussion or however), so be it. The community and ArbCom have exactly the same ability to decide what to do for an IRC issue, as they would over any other off-wiki matter: - an email issue, an off-wiki harassment case, an admin who ran an "attack site" on the side, etc. We usually leave off-wiki matters "at the door" (don't bring off-wiki matters onto the wiki), but in some cases it's too big not to act on. Thats a decision we'd presumably make case-by-case when it happens. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] En-admins

I find myself noticing the frequency with which IRC issues are misrepresented or interpreted in bad faith on-wiki. People know there is a way to handle concerns over IRC yet seem to be avoiding it.

Every case brought to my attention has been thoroughly checked out, often considerably more thoroughly than by the complainant. I found one case where there was genuine wrongdoing, an admin had solicited their own unblock (which is fine, they could have done that via template or email too), but the unblocking admin failed to check the case for themselves. I reported the incident and (summarized) IRC dialog for the community to consider, on ANI, myself, even though it was not public and it would have been easy to not do so.

In this case when Bishonen stated the dialog took place in 7 seconds I also went to check for myself. If she'd been right, it would have looked dark and I'd have had some strong words to say and tough questions for a number of users. The fact I checked this immediately testifies to seriousness and neutrality - in that case a genuinely plausible basis of complaint is presented. As it happens Bishonen's reading was in error ("The type of time indication is unfamiliar in my part of the world, and I misread"). But before I realized that, I checked -- because I took Bishonen's statement seriously. The page above testifies to it.

What is unhelpful is this pattern: Someone who was present in en-admins feels there is wrongdoing evidently (else why leak a log?). They know there are 60-70 people in the channel who can be told "that's really not okay", if there is a problem. They say nothing in channel. They say nothing to any channel user. Instead they publicize an allegation on-wiki, bypassing everything else that might help. It's hard to credit that a case is not being presented merely for "drama", if the person concerned claims to be so concerned as to feel the need to leak it to others as a "see how awful it is", but when you look at the facts, they have actually done nothing to try and get it addressed or considered themselves, never even said a thing to the user on-wiki at the time. Forgive me, but I'm going to put this in big letters:

If you (or another user) have a concern over something you see in channel, say so. Say "that's not okay". Exactly like you would on the wiki, say something to the person themselves. That is the norm. Say so openly. I and others do that if needed to keep people's minds on standards; you can too. If you feel unable to, then ask a channel op to handle it or ask in the channel "Is that okay" and see what happens. If you can't find one who will, ask one of the higher level ops. If that still doesn't work for you, then post it on-wiki on the en-admins talk page and let people know you've done so.

Do such issues get looked at? Yes - every time. The dispute with the admin unblock raised on ANI I looked into and was blunt and explicit in my report to the community that I felt there had been a misjudgement by an admin, and so on. The issue raised by Bishonen above where she believed the matter took place in 7 seconds and therefore was contrived, I went to track down "to the second" logs to check if so, with a view to acting on it, before realizing Irpen had made clear it was Bishonen's misreading of the timestamps. Other issues - the few times they arise - are routinely dealt with by other admins. Yes these things do get looked into, and when there is genuinely a fault, they get acted on. If users don't raise them, they won't be.

Every user has all these options. Every admin (+/- explicit removals) has the right to visit the channel if they want to monitor it first hand. Then if it's ignored or inadequately handled, or there is a genuine issue, say "I don't feel happy about this, I'd like to discuss it more". Then consider a post on some suitable wiki page and we'll sort it out as a community.

But do not ignore everyone and everything that's been set up in the wake of past issues to handle such things, only to breach privacy and lead others who weren't there to believe dubious gossip. That's unlikely to be productive, and to be honest it's pretty bad judgement.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

FT2 puts it well above. I'd like to add one clear point here, having been involved in similar problems in the past: Administrators in -en-admins should make independant decisions on any "requested" actions from other admins there. If somebody comes onto the channel and asks others to look at something, well, this is a good thing. However, administrators should be, and as far as I can tell are held accountable for their actions, and that should be the end of it. In a general sense, I do not believe that any administrators will act on anything just because somebody else tells them to. I've seen plenty of instances where an admin will ask something, and then get told by 6 other admins that they are wrong. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could it be that the error is not at the side of the community who complains but at your side, who analyzes? This very much (I repeat this point) reminds me of Durova's belated reflections. She did not see the problem in the activity she undertook, investigating people secretly behind their backs, just like the IRC, but that she made a judgment error. The corrupt is the medium itself, not the individual actions or individual users. I've not been able to put aside sufficient time but I would like to provide an alternative analysis of those many incidents and an explanation that seems to me more plausible. Anyone can be wrong of course but this is for the community to decide. --Irpen 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're still not looking at the big picture. You've focused down on to minor issues such as one editor's incivility and each alleged bad comment on IRC. You should be looking at the over-arching flaw in the IRC channel: It is an exclusive channel set up solely for a privileged group, because of this it creates, inescapably, a "them-and-us" mentality. You cannot help build an inclusive community by engraining division. The problem is not one editor or the odd comment: the problem is the existence of the channel. The very reason it was set up in the first place (as a private means of communication between selected editors) is its great flaw. DrKiernan (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explicit invitation

To this end I've gone out of my way to invite more than one admin who is an IRC-critic to visit the en-admins channel for a month (or two or three). I've gone out of my way to investigate reported concerns and have dissected them in full for the community so others have full information. (See below.) That's how sure I am of the mis-reporting that goes on, on-wiki, and of the overall quality of the channel.

I repeat the invitation again. I will be glad if a few users take it up -- if only to check for themselves rather than rely on hearsay. Either way it's a benefit to the project.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence that IRC issues are carefully investigated and fully reported, and - if needed - followed up

Examples: [91][92][93][94][95][96].

Avruch comments on one of these to Giano (above), "You don't dispute FT2's account, but it solidly contradicts any account you've given of the event and its core issues. Maybe you can address specifically whether there is anything incorrect in FT2s summary of events on IRC above?" [97].

Giano never replies.

Similarly when Bishonen's timing error became apparent, I asked her to evaluate based on two diffs, if the timing still substantiated her view. I asked twice [98][99].

Bishonen never replies.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm still waiting for Bishonen's reply...I asked twice...Bishonen never replies

I'm happy to repeat my reply: "About the timestamps, I did indeed make a stupid mistake, sorry: these are minutes, not seconds." How many times would you like me to say it? Please compare my comment on Avruch's page:

"I've come to the realization that most people simply don't have an eye for FT2's bullying. That's odd to me, but there you go. I could send you a list of his bullying manoeuvres—if you're interested—but I'd frankly rather not waste time on typing it up if you're not, so here's one of many test cases: I acknowledge very clearly that I misread the log timestamps: "About the timestamps, I did indeed make a stupid mistake, sorry: these are minutes, not seconds."[100] And in his next post FT2 demands I acknowledge it again: "Do you now agree the log shows that as being the timescale involved?".[101] If that's not bullying in your book, then, well, I certainly won't waste both our times by continuing to wave and point."

But that log quote wasn't my main point, the first three lines of my post were: "Holler", is it, FT2? That's what the regular user over whom you, as an arb, have so much power, is doing, according to you? You should be ashamed. You're out of control. You seem to have worn out any common human decency you started out with. Have you quite forgotten FloNight's warning that these are human beings you speak of? [[102] Please try to take that on board, it's seriously meant. Please take my reference to FloNight seriously, for instance. By doing that, I think you would interest people more than by your repetition of the untruth that "Bishonen neverreplies". BTW, my "most people simply don't have an eye for FT2's bullying" may be a bit harsh. Many people don't, indeed. But I think you may discover that most of them do. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

If there is evidence of FT2 bullying anyone then you should present that evidence instead of just mentioning it. I have not seen such behavior and if there is evidence then it should be investigated. I take such possibilities very seriously. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you? Then—I know it's a mouthful and a half to ask—but, then, read through this page. Nearly all of it is by FT2. Test your eye. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Yes, I do take such possibilities very seriously. If the content of this page is your evidence, then I must say that your eye can see what mine cannot. I have been watching this page for some time now and I am glad that the content of this page does not seem to support the argument that FT2 is bullying anyone. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to overwhelm someone by the force of your arguments. If done in an overbearing way, that is bullying. And no, I don't think FT2 has been bullying anyone, but I can, unlike you it seems, acknowledge Bishonen's point. Carcharoth (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, be nice. --66.234.217.151 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably can go both ways... used aggressively or with people who prefer few words or read slowly, it can have that effect, but more usually it's seen as a refreshing change that someone's willing to put the effort in to explain and discuss properly:

"User:FT2 and User:Lar I admire, since they both go above and beyond and out of their way to explain the reasoning behind their actions, especially administratively and as an Arb, in the case of FT2" [103];
"It is clear from your closing comments that you spent time considering the discussion. I appreciate your doing that. I was afraid that the closing admin would give a one-line close statement... instead we get this! Thanks a lot for taking the time to spell it out." [104];
"The lengthy explanation at (article) was a good thing and you deserve a bit of recognition for making a tough decision. Even though my recommended course of action (weak keep) was not what occurred, I applaud your work." [105]; and so on.

In difficult disputes, which I've worked on a long time here, a longer explanation routinely pays off in terms of genuinely resolving the matter, even though unfortunately some people find it too much to read or discuss. It's part of being honest and transparent; if people ask one can try to genuinely answer. Unfortunately the length and revisions are a weakness of mine, but I figure it's still better overall than the alternative. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You said you accept the error. I acknowledged it immediately. (My statement above begins with "Bish made an honest mistake".) But actually... that wasn't the question I asked. What I asked was to let me know if it really takes an administrator 5 minutes to form a view on civility and vandalism on two sample edits of around 8-20 words or so. This was since you seemed to be saying that despite the mistake on timing, you feel that 5 minutes is too short a time to plausibly do so, and hence proves conspiracy of some kind. I asked twice to test that with a couple of sample diffs (see above) and let me know how long you took. No reply. Twice. (See the problem? I link to one thing with one question, your response ignores both and asserts I'm discussing a different statement.)

The rest of what you mention, I've answered above already, see there. The English speaking world considers "holler" to mean "to call out or complain loudly", which seems exactly precise. It's a neutral word in everyday speech in English. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary advice for Giano

In all this, nobody has asked anything of Giano himself except this: To speak with good manner and good faith, to and of others. To express concerns civilly rather than as he does.

He has that command of English. The rest is his choice. If he does so then he will probably cease to be of interest to any administrator. In view of his wish to that effect, I recommend he does so.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I find the message above unhelpful (sorry.) FT2, you don't have to respond but you may of course withdraw or rephrase it. --Irpen 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion

Actually, this could be summed up very simply. Flonight has referred to the "civility police" and how she does not want to see administrators acting as the civility police for Giano or anyone (Flo, if I've misrepresented that, please correct me). FT2, what are your views on the "civility police"? Carcharoth (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a discussion of the civility police is warrented. I also think that regardless of FT2's (and others) comments to the contrary there are differences in the way different users are treated. There are others who are/have been substantially less civil than giano and gotten little to no sanction, and defended vigourously by those who would like to tar giano as evilly disruptive. If MONGO, or JzG were blocked under the same standard discussed above, they would be not editing very much. Is commenting negatively in edit summaries better than disruptive questioning?

The question of IRC's relationship to en.wikipedia was NOT answered in the recent irc arbcom case. What was said what the the committee will look at what it should be. As far as I can tell the committee has decided that the relationship should stay the same. That is the good parts of irc are celebrated and included as wikipedia working together! and the bad parts are ignored or told off as 'out of our control'. It is I think important for the committee to make this a clear statement.

The other portion of this that bothers is that there seems to be a growing trend towards communication about wikipedia and it's policies, procedures, and operation being conducted through non-transparent means. I would like to encourage people to use those means for things that really are private, and put things that don't require that privacy on wiki. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Rocksanddirt - your question on JzG/MONGO, see comment above - others would get identical approaches. It's not about the editor but about their actions. Discussed somewhat, a few pages above. Your last sentence, can't say I disagree, a reasonable statement. I'm not sure it's achievable in full, but it's worth discussing whether it could go anywhere or not. IRC - lets deal with that under "IRC" and see how much we can agree on.) - FT2 19:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Civility police" is a newly coined term that's guaranteed to be less than helpful. (In a way, it's a close cousin of what they'd call here, "fighting words". Or on-wiki, "inherently POV") So I'll try to answer it but not using that term.

Civility is an old Wikipedia tradition. What it means is, with tens or hundreds of thousands of editors, we need to really require people to focus on content, especially if there's an argument. If there is a need to criticize or focus on others' behavior, users need to learn the discipline to do it in a way that's not gratuitously unhelpful. For example, it's sometimes necessary to say "X is tendentious" because they are, but to throw-away in discussing with Y, "I hope you won't be a tendentious jerk like X is" does nothing productive. Another example is using words and approaches that you've been told by others are not helping calm things, but you ignore that and keep doing it (thereby aggravating, taunting, goading, baiting, teasing, escalating, or whatever). That does nothing productive either.

I personally don't think "civility" is the best term. It's accurate but it's not the best term for it. The word implies to some people that if you're "nice", all problems might be solved. To others it's almost a meaningless word. Also the word suggests there's some kind of universal standard we could use. What's more to the point is, if you gratuitously stir up stuff when it's not needed, and you say things (like kids do) that you know are unpleasant, unhelpful but you can always say "Who? Me? Little old me?" if faced with it... that's gaming. We don't have time or need for that. We don't benefit by it. It heats up situations, makes simple disputes harder, harder disputes impossible. My role as an editor up till RFA was often, to try and remove from other editor's paths, things that got in their way in adding good content. As an administrator I do the same, helping resolve disputes that got in editors way, cleaning up policy and project pages that cause problems, and so on.

Nothing's changed. Things that get in the way of good content are best resolved, and unfortunately as people aren't robots, social friction gets in the way all the time. Avoidable social friction is a genuine problem to the project. As a norm, we've always been clear on that between us. That's what civility is trying to say, I think. Even if you think it's harmless, or "they should be able to take it", we have tens or hundreds of thousands of users here, each with different perspectives and views. Opinions that are stated unnecessarily brutally or rudely or snarkily, don't help, and in many cases the view is, they hurt. Users asked not to, or told their manner is not okay, probably should respect the request, since it's a communal norm backed by a strong consensus.

Users who are advised by others that something they've said is offensive (like the word "lynch mob" that came up a month ago) should try to address it and if they're able, also thank the others for letting them know. We actually want users to try and respect others' need for respectful discussion (where it's likely to be genuine, reasonable and not being gamed), not drive a Mack truck through it. Nobody is going to want to believe their manner to others is a problem, any more than POV pushers want to hear their lack of neutrality is a problem. But it can be. When it is, if numerous users say so, an appropriate answer is to accept it and work with them, not flame them.

Ultimately though, whatever I believe, there is a communal norm that says "not okay". Users have a right to expect established norms to be fairly applied, not having some users blocked, whilst others are given a wink and nod and approval. (And as an aside, we're - hopefully - trying to move away from cliques and "in-groups" and things of that kind, and "one rule for X, another for Y", not towards it.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not much more to add here (well, maybe more than I realised), though I would like to add that I do actually appreciate (most of the time) the length and clarity of your (FT2's) replies (do you have a collection of essays?). One things I did want to pick up on is the idea that you carry out these investigations into IRC complaints. It would be better if more people were available to do this than just you, and if you didn't get involved in all of them. Just in case some people would prefer to hear what others had to say sometimes. As for civility, I think people should lighten up a bit sometimes (actually, I nicked that from someone else who said that today) and talk to each other more about content (and collaborate on creating content) and just apply common sense, instead of strait-laced civility rules. Me personally, I'm always happy to put incivility behind us once people start working together again. It is a refusal to work with others that can be really corrosive. There are a few people who I've annoyed enough that I doubt they would work with me (and I regret that), and there are others who sometimes seem to ignore me despite occassional comments I make directly towards them. It might just be a lack of time to interact with the many people here, but sometimes being polite and saying "thank-you" and "sorry" and dropping my people's talk pages - being proactively polite and courteous, can have a much greater positive effect than merely insisting on formal civility. Of course, that applies when you first meet people, or if you haven't interacted with someone in a long time, but in my view if you work with someone on an article, or collaborate on anything, then you start to move beyond just being civil, and you start to build genuine respect for each other. Though keeping a certain 'barrier' in place on the internet is always a good idea as regards personal stuff, talking business (ie. the content and workings of the encyclopedia) can always be done in an enthusiastic and kindly manner. People talk about BLP and avoiding harm, and how Wikipedia needs to be "kinder" to the people it writes articles on (let's put aside for one minute whether that is valid or not), but the same applies to other editors. Don't just be civil to them. Be kind to them. Be helpful. Show them how to do things. Politely point out possible improvements to something. Be bold. Discuss things with them. Feel your way into a conversation. And so on and so on. There are many ways to interact nicely with people, and far less ways to annoy them. Always remember there is a human somewhere who typed the words you are reading. Try and empathise with them. Anyway, that was far longer than I intended it to be, and a bit rambling, so I should return to the direct question I had, which was are there others willing to devote the time you do to "managing" IRC issues? Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Moving my previous post down, since I guess it was invisible where it was. Note timestamp for context.) Acknowledging my point is kind, Carcharoth, as is making excuses for my naivety, but please don't put yourself out. I'm indeed not making the point that FT2 is overwhelming anybody "by the force of his arguments." As for his means of overwhelming, I suppose you've noticed that he remains blind to the point—made by FloNight— that he's talking about human beings? No matter how many times I enquire about it? [106] [107] [108] And still claiming that "holler" is in the context an inoffensive word? Is that the adeptness you ascribe to him? [109] Bishonen | talk 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I was talking more about the "restraint" kind of adeptness. When you and Giano get angry, that shows you are human, but it also provides weaknesses for people to latch on to. But I am consciously trying to avoid psychobabble since Flo's gentle reminder. The 19th century scientists are much more interesting. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly there have been solid, consistent attempts to respect this. To discuss as a human being, to make allowances, to plead and try to help and to recognize strengths and weaknesses, constantly. Many users, not least myself since December. Problem's been they all got ignored. I stood back and did nothing, let others handle things this time. That got this and this. No recognition of human beings being hurt, and project members driven off. Compare and contrast that when Bishonen posts what looks like real evidence and says I'm wrong, I went immediately to check if she's right, and was completely prepared to take that concern up on her behalf if she's right and I'm mistaken. (She wasn't in this case, but anyone can make a mistake. It was in good faith.) That's what's overlooked; there's no sides in this. It's just that if you drive off or intimidate everyone else, then people who can ignore attacks will probably be the ones who step back in. I stepped back completely until I actually saw a user being driven off the wiki. Since other attempts had failed, it ends up as simply recognizing and addressing how his stance impacts the project. Understanding of the need is what's sought, that'll change everything, obviously. It's a bit like a sea-wall... whether the waves lap on the beach, or hurl themselves against it, the sea-wall isn't "attacking" the waves. It's just drawing a firm line. The harder Giano plays the more he'll bounce; the more he listens to the communal need the less he'll bounce (or even get any admin attention at all). The moment he can say to someone "please help me to avoid problems" or "is this a sensible post", and really wants to avoid them (or says "message heard" rather than leap to conclusions), he'll have all the help he needs. Simple equation. He has support, if he'd just listen to it. Unfortunately (and I wish it were otherwise), right now the situation is "personal appeals and explanations haven't actually worked from any user, nor has any form of appeal".

My word on it, if Giano can understand this, then none of this will be going on either. He has many friends who understand what's needed, maybe he will find one he can trust, who will explain people aren't out to get him, despite what he believes. We're not trying to remove him by a thousand cuts, we're (collectively, and especially ArbCom) trying to give him a thousand chances - to show he's learned a better manner with other users when there's possible conflict, and to leave some habitual mannerisms out of it.

The main thing being said, when all's said and done, is something I hope we can all agree on. There's tens or hundreds of thousands of users and two thousand admins who have the communally agreed right to reasonable dialog without unhelpful hostile assumptions, and barbed throw-aways, and they count too. Doing this for 2 years, driving away users, having repeated complaints as far as arbitration by multiple other users, then complaining at this constant history of conduct being taken seriously.... it just doesn't work. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You said "tens or hundreds of thousands of users" - actually, I doubt this, and your wide range from tens to hundreds shows that you are wildly speculating (as are all of us). The real figure you want there is the number of people who interact with admins, or whose activity rises to the level where admins get involved. Also, there is unseen damage, where people silently leave, and there is unseen activity as well, where people quietly edit and never need to interact with admins or even other users. I suspect that the active, interacting core of established editors is smaller than people realise. Anyway, thanks, as always, for your replies here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, nobody knows how many editors we have, nor how many any specific issue might affect. "A large but unknown number" is probably more representative. I'm glad you picked up on the silent leavers or people who are discouraged. Point is, there are other priorities I want to get to this year, like our new generation of "civil edit warriors and pov pushers", people who deter our best writers by making their editorial work frustrating rather than fun, faster forms of dispute and problem handling. Those I think would be widely desired, but today, right now, I'm on about day 9 (!) of arguing over a matter that could have been resolved from April 14 by Giano taking any one of the following measures:

Respecting others right to read and remove as he expects others to respect his, instead of trying to edit war.
Not calling the admin who said "don't edit war" a "gnome like stalker"
Dropping a note to the blocking admin (or on his talk page) saying "sorry, my bad, I was frustrated, It's dropped now"
Not responding by flaming the blocking admin off the wiki, which raised it to a whole new level of problem
Saying at any stage, "I understand whats being asked of me, and I'll avoid it next time"
Any one of a dozen other actions and words that would suggest change might be forthcoming
Any one of a dozen other actions and words that respond to the situation by de-escalating it or seeking reconciliation.
Recognition of what was being asked and the repeated statements that admins are not "against" him
Heeding the advice of friends (if he doesn't have friends who advised him to calm and cool it, or drop it, that's a different matter)

Any one of these. Just one. Any of them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think we've both made our points. The best way to de-escalate things might now be if we all step away. Repeating things won't help at this stage, and from what I can see, your continuing comments are not helping (and mine probably aren't either). If you really want Giano to calm down, please consider reducing or archiving or summarising the material currently on your talk page. To be clear, I'm going to make a conscious effort to step away, and I hope you and Giano do as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AE (IRC)

[110]. In other circumstances, one might hope that since you ignored this that others might as well. Since that seems unlikely, and I'd rather not see another event where someone blocks and discusses it anywhere with anyone whose heard of IRC, perhaps you can weigh in pre-emptively about Giano's edit to this page on WP:AE. Avruch ^T 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kindness

When making a decision about the correct action, I've found that being as kind as I can be in a given situation is best. Since Giano is uncomfortable with the detailed comments, I think that archiving the comments about him is for the best. Kindness is almost always repaid with kindness, although the payoff is not always immediate. Could you remove the comments about him, right away? I truly think that this kind approach is for the best. Thanks, FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AE discussion closed

The new discussion thread on AE has been closed. I think (and others agree) that this is a continuation of the long discussion about the past block. There have been many questions and comments about the block/unblock. The continued queries about different aspect of the issue blended in with the block discussion kept the discussion going long past the time of an ordinary discussion about a block/unblock. In the future, it will be helpful if everyone posting can separate out the aspects of the discussion that do not directly related to the person blocked and have that part of the discussion on the policy page. And I hope everyone that asked a question will reflect on whether continuing the discussion was helpful or caused more stress. Less (from everyone) can be more... :)

I'm going to post a message on Giano's talk page, letting him know that we are aware of the problems that a prolonged discussion can cause and in the future plan to re-direct queries from his supporters to a different location. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teeny tiny comment

G'day FT - I've got two small questions which you're free to consider;

I'd like to spend a short time in the IRC admins channel, taking a look etc. - I am curious - is there any way to facilitate this?
Would you mind recommending everyone takes a bit of a time out from the IRC and Giano related issues? - say a week without bothering to continue it? I think everyone could do with a cup of tea, and rest!

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ps. I should also tell you that I had a chat with Tiptoety on IRC about this who was very helpful indeed, but consensus was to not admit me for a 'tour' at that point.... I think it may have been discussed on the channel at that point too, but am not sure... hope this 'disclosure' helps! - Privatemusings (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be an issue for the channel to decide, not Tiptoey (who isn't even an op and couldn't facilitate this). John Reaves 23:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure - just trying to give credit where it's due - Tiptoety was very helpful to me on the -en channel, and I thought it'd be nice to recognise that! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this one's being discussed elsewhere by now. Catch you round though! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:FT2/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archived May 24 2006

[edit] link (personal note re zoophilia and also banned user ciz)

[edit] Neuro-linguistic Programming

[edit] Please discuss large changes to policies before making them

[edit] An idea (Cultural and Historical Jesus)

[edit] Question and reference (Cultural and Historical Jesus)

[edit] Trance-formations quote (page numbers)

[edit] Empty category

[edit] Notification of POV-pusher & libeler conspiracy

[edit] Arbitration Cases

[edit] Arbitration accepted

[edit] Thanks For Your Question (ArbCom candidate User:Karmafist)

[edit] Presentation of evidence in ArbCom cases

[edit] Thanks!

[edit] POV Suppression draft policy

[edit] Edit summary, September 11, 2001 attacks

[edit] Conspiracy theory disagreement

[edit] how (and why) do you hide your own text?

[edit] Edited talk pages

[edit] Words to avoid

[edit] Re:Libel?

[edit] Neuro-linguistic programming evidence

[edit] DrBat evidence

[edit] Article corrections

[edit] Don't be fanatical

[edit] Death Penalty

[edit] possible request for comment?

[edit] NLP Article Arbitration

[edit] Request for your input

[edit] new policy or help tool for policy?

[edit] NPOV? User:Radiant!

[edit] Final decision

[edit] There's no escaping your misdeeds (HeadleyDown: vandal's personal attack)

[edit] Wikipedia:Current surveys

[edit] Jewish views of Jesus

[edit] Request for edit summary

[edit] proposed policy disagreement?

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Camonica2.png

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drauper freak wave.png)

[edit] Trusted Computing synopsis

[edit] Re:Request

[edit] 1.0 Team

[edit] Banned users

[edit] Reply

[edit] Archived June 15 2006

[edit] TfD

[edit] NSA controversy: comprehensive reorganization

[edit] Reconstruction of NLP series

[edit] Reconstruction: principles

[edit] Helen Wu

[edit] NLP and Science

[edit] Archived December 17 2006

[edit] Pornography stuff

[edit] Controversy header good idea

[edit] FWIW

[edit] THANKS!!

[edit] Zoophilia reconstruction

[edit] Comparing/contrasting Judaism/Christianity

[edit] Thanks for "about Wikipedia".

[edit] hello

[edit] Gender Differences

[edit] thanks

[edit] Wikipedia 0.5

[edit] Animal pornography

[edit] cultural and historical background

[edit] Image thumbnail test

[edit] Articles

[edit] Image tagging

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Yak and mare.jpg

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Cow and tractor.png

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Dog and toy.png

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Racoon and dog.png

[edit] Userfied (List of users of Neuro-linguistic programming moved to user space)

[edit] HeadleyDown related

[edit] NLP

[edit] Promotional views on zoophilia (HeadleyDown: banned vandal personal attack sock

[edit] List of war crimes