Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 31 December 2007

Centralized discussion Village pumps policy tech proposals idea lab WMF misc Voluntary RfAs after resignation Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed? For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. view edit history watch archive talk purge

24 December 2024 News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025 Recently closed cases (Past cases) No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Clarification and Amendment requests Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions Motion name Date posted Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive
  Closed topics are archived to approx. November 20 2007.

Misplaced Pages IRC channel:

Services Link:

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

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Misplaced Pages:Canvassing | Contribs tool: | plainlinks: 'Span style="plainlinks"'

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Misplaced Pages Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. 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)

Legal threats

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 Misplaced Pages.) SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Jeeny

The Block log isn't showing a reblock. Spartaz 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Was considering the block log briefly - now addressed. Thanks! FT2 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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)

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 07:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages!), copied from posting on Village pump

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  22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regis Silva, Hotel des Arts, and User:Greatartists210

Speedy deletion of Regis Silva

DELETE ARTICLE ASP

A tag has been placed on Regis Silva requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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  11:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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  18:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Misplaced Pages: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 if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or 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 Misplaced Pages: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 may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

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  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  00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Email

I didn't get it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages users from unnecessary stress. Thanks, and good luck. FCYTravis 05:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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  09:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 ~ Evidence 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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  23:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom Question

That's a very good answer. Thanks, and good luck in your work, should you be appointed. ZZ ~ Evidence 04:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Barbara Schwarz

(Re: Draft article User:FT2/Schwarz, request for NPOV/BLP review following DRV here.)

Looks good. The only three suggestions I have are:

1. Cite or remove the sentence "The Department of Justice and a number of courts have strongly criticized these actions."
2. 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."
3. 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  22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Update, 2+3 fixed, 1 left for now.

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)

re Dwellers of the Forbidden City close

Misplaced Pages: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  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  16:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Email for you. FT2  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)

Deletion

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. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, and nicely thought of. FT2  16:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy Holidays! --JustaHulk (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you comment?

See Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Previous_username_blocks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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! ♠PMC♠ 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 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Jehochman 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)

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)

Deletion review

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)

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)

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)

A heads up

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  06:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC ArbCom case comment

Please see this, which concerns you. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

I disagree with your assessment here, 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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)