• Archived talk page comments: /Archive
  Closed topics are archived to approx. July 31 2008.

Current discussion summaries

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Elli 0 0 0 0 Discussion 16:53, 7 June 2024 5 days, 4 hours no report

16 May 2024   News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators? Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24 In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure Comix: Generations Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Wikipedia:Canvassing | Contribs tool: [3] | plainlinks: 'Span style="plainlinks"'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You wont catch me arguing hard. I commented early in the second AFD agreeing with Thatcher, that this was a subtopic easily covered by overlapping other topics [5]. It's a fairly good call. Not only there's nothing there that can't fit into either NLP, communication or rapport, but from what I remember there isn't likely to be much added, and looking back with a few more years perspective on AFD's and editing, I (more than likely) concur. It'll have coverage and reliable sources, the issue on this one (for me) is WP:MM: if multiple articles cover similar or closely related topics, we usually try to avoid pointless "sprawl" . Supported, good catch. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter, FT2 was not even an administrator at that time, much less an arbitrator (He was made an admin in January 2007 [6]). The admins who made the blocks (for bad behavior, then for sockpuppetry) are documented at the bottom of this page, and seem to be mostly Katefan0 (who has retired) and Woohookitty (talk · contribs), who is currently active. While you are welcome to advocate on their behalf, Headley and Flavius must make their own appeals to Arbcom--I doubt very much that Arbcom would be interested in discussing it as a theoretical matter unless the users actually make a request to be unbanned. Assuming they do that, FT2 would recuse from hearing the case and would participate as an editor only. I believe the Arbcom is now taking active steps to exclude arbitrators from the private discussions of cases in which they are involved (through the use of separate mailing lists) which is an improvement from the past. Thatcher 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(2) The blocking or banning of Headley Down. FT2 has been instrumental in banning sockpuppets of this user since he became an admin: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies. Sincerely. Peter Damian (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hi FT2,

I am writing in relation to the arbitration case, C68-FM-SV. I submitted evidence to that case concerning misuse of admin tools by user FeloniousMonk. My evidence was submitted on May 20, thus over three months ago. I am wondering why there has been no resolution of this case. I am not writing in order to accuse anybody, but I would like to say that this lengthy delay does indicate that there seems to be a problem with the functioning of the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration should be resolved more quickly than this, as you no doubt already know. No doubt as well these cases attract a lot of melodrama, but I would like to state that my evidence was submitted in good faith, and that such lengthy delays give the appearance that arbitrators are not respecting those who take the time to submit evidence in the hope of making possible a decision. In other words, there is the appearance that those who place their faith in the committee by submitting evidence are not having that good faith returned in the form of the obligation to make a timely decision. Why should editors continue to submit evidence in such cases if they cannot trust that their evidence will be considered and acted on within a reasonable timeframe? I would also like to add that, even though the case no doubt contains many complex elements, it does not seem to me that any of those complexities are so much greater than those found in other cases, as to be sufficient to explain the delay. Perhaps there are reasons for the delay of which I am unaware, whether to do with the nature of the case itself, or to do with the nature of the committee. I am therefore wondering: (a) if a decision is likely soon; (b) if the committee acknowledges the delay is itself a failing of the committee; (c) if the committee feels obliged to explain the true causes of the delay; and (d) if the committee will state whether it believes these problems need to be addressed, and if so, how. FNMF (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to pry, but there wasn't much on this RfC when you posted. Was it meant for another self initiated RfC, or was this one the correct one? Synergy 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prying's fine, I got asked by someone if we were aware of the generic situations and such, so I commented.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. No problems then. It just caught me off guard to see you say the concerns at this specific RfC, before a concern was raised over there. I'll go back to minding my own business now. :) Synergy 11:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be checking, but worse things have happened. An account in the name of 'FT2' has been opened at Wikipedia Review. Could you possibly just confirm here that it is genuine? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, if that's not FT2, we're looking at an uncanny impersonation of his writing style.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree absolutely but I just like things to be verified. If it's genuine, he should have no problem confirming. Peter Damian (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. This was my email comment to arbcom:

I have signed up an account at WR. This is prompted by the general matters quoted below, and [specific matter snipped]. The central part of my post there, reads as follows: "Since a sitting arbitrator setting up a WR account will be a topic of speculation, it's probably worth saying why, and why not, up front. Main reasons why, are that a lot of the worst disputes and controversies I see, seem to have their roots off site as much as on-site. In other words the action may start on-wiki, but the speculation, concerns, and accurate or inaccurate views and myth-making may take place off-wiki. My job (and probably a number of disputes I get asked to help with) gets easier on-site, if I'm aware of the myths earlier and if people who have concerns can ask those who might know. Obviously people can and should ask on-wiki or by email if there is a worry, but the fact is that many people won't, or don't see fact checking as important. Also because I'm still finding myself regularly involved on wikipedia, in matters where WR users take an interest, and whatever some at wikipedia may think, a number of editors I'm told post at WR are sane, sensible users. (Obviously some are not balanced reasonable editors, but the point is, there are probably all sorts, and assumption isn't helpful.) So I would like to avoid the hearsay that "all WR users are whatever", in favor of a view that like wikipedia editors, they're individuals, and to meet those individuals. Lastly, because realistically, I do the public face of many of the more high profile Arbcom cases, and I'm one of the Arbitrators more willing to be fairly open to questions on such cases where possible. What I'm not here for: to spend days justifying things to people who can't think calmly, clearly and productively without games; to argue people out of entire world views such as conspiracy-based thinking; to identify myself personally or discuss irrelevant matters; to get distracted from my core work on English wikipedia Arbcom; to give information and views I wouldn't give on Wikipedia itself, to fight battles and causes. If someone wants serious sensible dialog, then sure. But Arbitrators don't get elected by the community for cluelessness; there will be some here who just want to distract, have fun, play games, or the like - not interested. The users here who want genuine dialog, and act that way... those will find I'm open as much as my Wikipedia work and the best interests of the project allow me to be, and as they approach me, that's how they will find me. That said most of my wiki-work is at Wikipedia itself. I don't do politics so even other wiki sites such as meta aren't places I go, unless relevant to enwiki work, much less off-site like this. I just think there's a chance that this might be something I should do, or at least check out, rather than rely on hearsay." I do not plan to be controversial there or to say or do anything I wouldn't on-wiki. I don't plan to get distracted from stuff here. Rather, I plan to try and keep better abreast of the dramas before they hit Wikipedia and RFAR/ANI, and perhaps to forestall some of the worst idiocies one hears of. I plan to use it to look when other concerned admins tell me of a WR thread that in the past I'd have ignored, which I possibly should read.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious... why did you have to justify it to the Arbcom? Did Brad have to? I mean, as a body they have no authority over this sort of thing as it relates to your position on the AC itself, correct? rootology (C)(T) 01:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to bringing the project into disrepute. There's a relatively strong faction of contributors that see WR as bad, and we've had serious issues of outing there in the past. Given FT2 is in a position of trust within the project, it was only right he told his colleagues what he was planning to do. FT2 has already expressed that he's not going to get involved in any contentious issues over there, and I suspect he'll take a lesser presence than NYB (although I respect Brad has kept his postings collegial throughout and has kept his opinions directed to defending Wikipedia). I guess conversing with his fellow arbs was down to an act of respect. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1/ I generally disclose any issue that might be relevant, if in doubt, and have done so from my earliest days here. It helps avoid problems later. Plus 2/ as Ryan P says. WR is seen in a dim light by many users. It is important to me, to be clear to users who might wonder, and anticipate the question. It cuts down uncertainty and is respectful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes total sense. I was just curious, is all, as things are always touchy between the USA and the Soviet Union these days. rootology (C)(T) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FT2, I am struck by your post at WP:ARB/GWH, "Comment on civility policy" #3, specifically "we are encyclopedists, not school-children having a squabble". However it is a patent fact that a portion of the editorship here in fact are school-children. Some are university students, some are high-school students (well, they're young enough that hopefully they are still in school). Combine this now with the additional patent fact that (I think I read this first in one of Guy's comments) "the internet is populated by eggshells armed with sledgehammers", and we have a big problem with defining civility.

Young people especially are concerned with pushing all limits and react disproportionately when those limits are brought home to them. I know I did (long ago). We cannot have a milieu such as this wiki where all comers are free to carry on as they will, pursuing any strategem they wish to effect their will, then when someone reacts abruptly after persistent engagement rush off to demand redress for some particular identified "offensive" wording. If someone were to call me an idiot or troll, here or in actual life, I would have one of three responses: if I respected the person, carefully consider whether I was really being an idiot or a troll; if I already knew and did not respect the person, feel silently flattered that they would take time from their life to insult me, and carry on; or if it was a stranger, react cautiously with the aim of getting on with my life and reviewing the situation later.

We can't have a situation where everyone must tiptoe about avoiding certain phrasings whilst free to act in a civilly provocative manner or engage in "civil POV-pushing". Sometimes bullshit needs to be called, well, "bullshit". Civility enforcement should be applied to those editors who react inappropriately with incivil language at the outset of a debate, and those who resort to flaming language - not necessarily to those who get frustrated when their points aren't recognized mid-debate and resort to plain language. Admins shouldn't necessarily be asking other admins to review whether they've been treated incivilly either, there's a big danger of self-reinforcement in that procedure. And adults shouldn't be forced to observe the self-absorbed standards of school-children. Franamax (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the expression more as a colloquialism. Some schoolchildren are quite mature and can discuss neutrally and capably, with insight. Some adults in their 20's, 30's and 40's and older come to this site and "act like children". The image I tried to portray was that we should act as sensible "adult" people whose focus is on writing an encyclopedia, rather than the kind of scenes one might (metaphorically) see in a school-yard. It was not a comment about any age related issue.

You're right about certain problems, but those problems can (and routinely do) manifest in the conduct and edits of people of any age, and frequently in the edits of adults every bit as much as any younger person. It's the behavior that needs targeting. Saying "a spade is a spade" is not actually a good guideline for this site. "What best helps the project and reduces issues" is a far better one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a spade a spade will often help the project and reduce issues, in my experience. Peter Damian (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And often causes and escalates disputes, leading to wasted effort, in mine. (Also, people who want freedom to call others anything they wish, often cannot handle being told by others how they themselves are seen.) All disputes that aren't about content issues, are ultimately wasteful. So choosing approaches that reduce them is good. It helps people work with others even if they don't like them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All disputes that end up with good content contributors (Giano, Probiv, ScienceApologist, Flavius, Headley, PhDarts, Ciz and the many others) leaving the project are wasteful. Your approach to policing, either directly or indirectly, has led to all this, and is dividing and wounding the community. Fact facts, confront your denial, get real. Peter Damian (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And can I suggest as politely as I can that it is you who has the difficulty of being told by others how you are seen? Peter Damian (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be warned that an editor has been plagiarising your work. I left a template on their page as a warning to this virulent sockpuppet, be vigiliant in this time of increasing danger to the project. With best wishes. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That account hasn't contributed in 2-1/2 years. Please find another row to hoe. Thatcher 07:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you banned this user some while ago as a sockpuppet of HeadlyDowns. An new user has appeared editing the same pages, and adopting exactly the same Grand Condescending manner as Phdarts, using the name user:Nocturnalsleeper. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering whether there is enough evidence in the edits to support looking further. If you have specific diffs you want me to look at, let me know. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No immediate evidence of being Phdarts (havent check in depth). Very likely to be a reincarnation of NewAladacia26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) though. As might anything from 1 to 95 other users be. This one will be a lot of work. I may hard-block the IP range due to the scale and hardened nature of it, combined with the topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It was his particular pov, his style of writing, mode of address and manner of argument that seemed close to me. Unfortunately such matters are rather difficult to document. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't if I were you, i.e. want to avert nuclear war. NS is making some very good edits, and the fact he has been antagonised by obviously pro-pedophile editors is no reason, I would have thought, to block him. [[User:Burrburr] to be sure has an impressive array of sockpuppets, but I don't actually see why he was blocked (apart from the multiple accounts). He appears to be a strong editor, has a command of the reliable sources, and has made some v amusing edits. So, FT2, don't even think of it, OK? Peter Damian (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the same articles from multiple overlapping accounts is not permitted. Some of the behavior of Burrburr and Nocturnalsleeper consists of editing from one account for a day or so, then abandoning it. That's not strictly verboten, but it will be viewed by many as disruptive, and I don't understand it at all. Other accounts do overlap in time and on articles, which is a definite no-no. I would not object to allowing this editor to declare a single account and stick to it; but for the multiple accounts he seems a decent enough editor, so if he will stop using multiple accounts I would have no further concerns. Thatcher 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • By the way, on checking my notes I find that Burrburr had used two different ISPs, and Nocturnalsleeper is a match for one of them, so it is very likely that Nocturnalsleeper is in fact Burrburr. Thatcher 00:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming Burrburr is one of the other 1 - 95, FWIW. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have done this. Let war commence. Peter Damian (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next step is ANI, next step after that is Sloan Foundation and so on. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, there's no need to make threats like that when you haven't got access to all the information. Both Thatcher and FT2 confirmed the accounts were socks. We certainly don't threaten to go running to outside foundations, presumably to get the WMF's funding cut. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, NocturnalSleeper needs to engage in a dialog, drop the pretense that all his accounts are students at a boys' school, and agree to limit himself to a single account. Thatcher 03:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've blocked another 35 or so accounts. Thatcher 03:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]