Misplaced Pages

User talk:FT2

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 24 November 2009 (→Clarifications: further copy editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:17, 24 November 2009 by Jehochman (talk | contribs) (→Clarifications: further copy editing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
  • Archived talk page comments: /Archive
    Closed topics are archived to approx. June 15 2009.
Current discussion summaries
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)


Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
  
Arbitration Committee proceedings 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

The Signpost
24 December 2024

Summer Wikibreak

FT2 is taking a wikibreak due to busy things in real life. I'll be intermittently around and responsive to some things, but if it's urgent please consider asking someone else until I get back.

In brief I have a number of big "real life" matters all coming up (mostly good, I hope!), but I need to have a clear mind and a clear desk to handle them without wondering what's up on the wiki and elsewhere. At any rate until they're over, which could be anything from 3 weeks to 4 months.


Things I'll try to keep active on (no guarantees):

  1. Functionaries-en list matters
  2. Reports of serious sock cases, sensitive CU work, admin misconduct
  3. RevisionDelete and other anti-disruption tools
  4. Second opinions, advice, sensitive issues, etc
  5. Anything you want to let me know :-)


I will be "alive", just not tracking wiki-things that much. If I'm needed, contact me by email, but response time may vary. Consider asking another user if I haven't replied within 24 hours.

FT2 11:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


(I'm also likely to use the {{wikibreak break}} template some time or other, but I could stop if I wanted to! :-) )

Labrador

Hi FT2. Can you please take a look at the history of the Labrador Retriever page? There seems to be a major case of "showcase my dog" going on there. I'd love for you to weigh in if you're interested. Erikeltic 02:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I skip it this time? I'm trying to be on Wikibreak (and not succeeding very much right now) FT2  12:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
All righty then. If it gets too bad, I'll request semi-protection from the anon ips. Erikeltic 02:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"choosing to trust a partner who is physically at risk"

Back in February 2006, I believe you added the following item in the Human sexual behavior:Safety and ancillary issues section: "choosing to trust a partner who is physically at risk." I started a topic on the talk page to help me understand what we mean by that, perhaps leading to a clarification. If you have a chance to contribute there and enlighten me I'd much appreciate it. Thanks, Jojalozzo (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's ages ago, it's a typo. It should probably be "a" not "at". But these days that kind of list should be sourced to something authoritative. Will leave a comment on the talk page. FT2  05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Computer component price history

Putting this here, don't know if you watched your RD question. Are you meaning some little graphs like the ones at nextag.com? example--inks 04:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I was hoping for US prices but most IT big companies are global and so are their prices to a great extent. FT2  04:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Beehold

Just a heads-up that Beehold has taken steps to comply with the mentioned policies. I'm not changing my vote at this time, but you might be interested in doing so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of consent

Hi. :) Needlessly complex though it may be, I just wanted to remind that text isn't always CC-By-SA, per , but only if it is co-authored or produced by somebody else. If the contributor is the copyright holder, it must be co-licensed. How to succinctly express that, when people have trouble following the directions we've had,I have no idea. :/ Maybe we should add, "If you are the sole copyright holder, it must also be licensed under GFDL"? --Moonriddengirl 14:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Realistically, God knows :) I'm not a licensing specialist, I cleaned up the rest of it and left that. The whole area needs cleanup. FT2  14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a pain, isn't it? When descriptions start off with "If...then..." clauses, you're going to lose a lot of your public. :) I'll see what I can come up with. The whole area does need cleanup; thanks for undertaking some of that. :D --Moonriddengirl 14:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
When I get off wikibreak I'll get into that whole area. I did it once before, but now it needs more. Would you be interested in working jointly on that? Licensing details and arcana could do with careful review when it's reworked. FT2  14:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure; I'd absolutely be willing to help. Just tap me when you're ready to go. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tiber Oilfield

Hello! Your submission of Tiber oilfield at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —S Marshall /Cont 16:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarified at DYK - thanks. FT2  16:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tiber oilfield

Updated DYK query On September 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tiber oilfield, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Staxringold talk 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, you might have a few hundred or thousand of those to post -- I think just about everyone else felt it as well...... FT2  20:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

global blacklist: .*everett.*

Is this still necessary? (came up at Misplaced Pages:AN#Create page for James Everett Stanley) –xeno 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Experienced Opinion

I wanted to draw on your expertise for a brief moment. I recently noticed a contradiction between two articles and thought you might have some ideas on where I should bring it up at. The Outline of geography#Landforms lists deserts as an example of landforms. The article Landform, however, notes: "Landforms do not include ... geographic features, such as deserts." Another user brought this up on the Geography Wikiproject a few months ago, but things are stale there. Any ideas on where I could mention this to get opinions on the matter? I don't mean to bother you -- only respond if you have the time and inclination. :) —Matheuler 03:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

afd notification

Hi. Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Same-sex marriage and procreation (2nd nomination). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Coughlin

Done.

Rather inconsiderate of you...

...to have the idea for {{uninvolved}} before I did! Nevertheless, the damage is done, and I've already started a discussion at VPR you might wish to share your thoughts in. Cheers,  Skomorokh  08:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't indicate it. I'll fix that. FT2  00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Link added. FT2  00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget

Bishonen knew that Geogre was socking while he was harassing me and was involved in conversations with her and myself while using the other name. Allowing another editor to use a sock to facilitate harassment against others is probably just as bad as what you listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I love how my at my ArbCom people call me paranoid while some of those people responding have already been proven as stooping to these levels to attack me. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It's entirely possible. FT2  01:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

In my original request, I posted this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&oldid=317291255#Unclear. That is as transparent as it gets to show the discussion between KillerChihuahua and me. It's all there. Jehochman 01:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Bishonen blocked you once upon a time, part of the situation which eventually led to you stepping down from ArbCom. Shortly after, you created Bishonen 3: On the ArbCom Case page you accuse us of "your joint "first in the trough" in both cases" - this is nonsense. You started it at 06:30, 3 August 2009 . Jehochman made his first addition at 12:28, 3 August 2009 and 19 edits and several editors later, and appearing after Joopercoopers, Chillum, Majorly, Jack Merridew, Unitanode and Cirt, I finally found the darn thing at 18:38, 3 August 2009
You have hurt feelings, or perhaps feel insulted is better phrasing, that I did the cupcake view on Bishonen 3, as OrangeMarlin had done on Bishonen 2, and Sean Black had done on Bishonen (1). I also informed you I thought you were emphatically not the appropriate person to open such an Rfc, at one time asking if you were completely without clue. Jehochman also told you these things in different ways.
I frequently agree with other editors here. No collusion is necessary, especially when you can see us discussing whether to open an Rfc or move to ArbCom right there in the open on my talk page. I'm not in collusion with Jehochman any more than I am with Joopercoopers, Chillum, Majorly, Jack Merridew, Unitanode and Cirt, or you - all of whom were also on Bish3.
Now you have tried to draw some kind of parallel between your the current Arbcom Case and your ill-advised Rfc on Bishonen, who didn't lie, didn't assist a banned or sanctioned friend to circumvent ArbCom, didn't nominate nor support a sock of an admin who'd been forced to be de-sysopped under a cloud for adminship - in short, the only tenuous similarity is that a sock was involved in each case. The situations are completely different. The only constant is... you. Badgering, hostile to those you feel have done you wrong. First Bishonen, now myself and to a lesser extent Jehochman. Consider your actions. Consider the words "grudge" and "bias" and "vendetta" and consider your actions in light of those words. Consider dropping your persistent harassment of me. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 12:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Err. No.
Your idea of "shortly after"... that was old news in 2008 and January '09. I raised the RFC - as one of several experienced users please note - over 7 months following that. It followed a very specific incident in which Bishonen appeared to have 1/ acted improperly, and 2/ engaged in precisely the behavior you just endorsed an RFAR for, and 3/ refused to engage in the required dialog on a talk page.
If you want to claim that was somehow "retaliation" for the old block (for which she was admonished anyway) you'll have to do a heck of a lot better.
If you also want to avoid the question by claiming that somehow asking you to explain your apparent inconsistent behavior where you support one sock-abetor and condemn another, and you characterize re-asking when you don't answer (and having completely ignored it from then to now) as "persistent harassment", you'll likewise have to do a lot better.
You're also forgetting you fabricated never-substantiated claims, and ominous threats, that you never backed up last time (or indeed here). So I no longer automatically believe you when you claim someone's "harassing meee", or "persistently" doing stuff, or "attacking" your friends.
You're accountable. You're being asked to account. I have asked you one simple question. Are your views on admins concealing socking, the same now, as when you protected someone you knew 2 months ago who multiple users felt did the same? That's a reasonable question, and your avoidance and bluster in place of an answer is the only reason I've had to say anything beyond "thank you".
FT2  12:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


That's gaming, KC. You know I asked about "concealing" an admin socker... because I've said so. There's a term for the tactic of changing what someone says, then asking them to back up that (untruthful/distracting) version, as a way to not answer the original. Read my actual question ... and actually answer it -- not some substitute question or point of your own choosing -- and we may be done. FT2  12:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no evidence Bishonen concealed any sock which was a desysopped friend evading an ArbCom ban for harassment. In fact, I have no evidence she concealed any sock at all. Neither do you. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I asked whether your view was as strong then as now, on desysopping admins who conceal socking. I did not ask your opinion on the case itself. Considering you openly admitted to forming and posting a view at the RFC before checking any evidence or diffs, and without giving a damn to read them, you wouldn't have been well informed to answer anyway.
The tactic you're using is one of "bluster, distract, accuse, raise straw men, then after a while claim that re-asking is harassing mee!"
We've had no real contact save for these two times when you acted in a questionable manner – and to ask why you behaved in a questionable manner. You endorsed this RFAR. You appear to have protected one user and demanded desysopping of another where identical concerns are raised. So - was your stance 2 months ago (that admins who knowingly conceal socking should be desysopped), as strongly held then as now? Yes? No? FT2  13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have evidence Bishonen concealed a sock which was an admin friend using a secret account to prop up consensus, to seem "neutral" while the other attacked, and was there only for harassment. As the object of the attack in which she aided the sock in his attacks against me, she was complicit in the harassment and should have been censured for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You may indeed. I, however, have no such evidence, nor did I even know that Utgard Loki was a sock until Geogre was before Arbcom accused of misuse of that sock. I also have my doubts that 'alleged harassment' = 'proudly unrepentantly and knowingly helping an editor violate an ArbCom ban. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course you don't have evidence. RFC is for uninvolved admins to assess evidence. Only you decided prior to the case that it was "ridiculous" to consider such serious concerns, then afterwards admitted you hadn't bothered to check the evidence (by multiple admins) anyway. FT2  15:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The word "appear" means "could quite plausibly seem that way to a reviewing user". It might not be so... but right now it's a possibility and your conduct throughout was certainly very strange and not very consistent with admin standards.
That's why I asked for clarity on your stance on the basic principle involved -- whether you genuinely do feel that an admin who has concealed socking should be summarily desysopped (your strong words at RFAR). Evidence that might suggest an admin did so was presented for the community to review, which you couldn't be bothered to review before opining disparagingly.
My concern with you is you stepped in to impede that discussion. The issue/allegation raised then about someone you knew, was a matter that you now claim to feel very strongly could and should (if proven) lead to desysopping. But in that case you didn't check the evidence at all, and it seems you took actions whose effect was to prevent any productive discussion. So I ask, what do you really believe about admins who abet or knowingly conceal socking? Are your strong words at RFAR real or sincere? Confirm whether you felt so strongly about such issues 2 months ago. That's all I'm asking. FT2  14:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

← Sheesh. FT2 clearly believes that the Geogre situation and the Law situation were similar and should be treated similarly. KillerChihuahua believes they are dissimilar, and thus it would be silly to treat them the same way. It doesn't seem very complicated; both views are reasonable, and reasonable people can view the same situation and reach different conclusions. I don't think that trying to back KC into a corner is going to persuade anyone of anything.

Additionally, I'm a little concerned at the abridgement applied by FT2 in his questioning. Compare the following:

Do you see what you've done? KC's original comment highlighted the evasion of ArbCom sanctions and the nomination of a known sock for adminship as key elements of her concern here. You elided those elements and made it sound like she issued a categorical condemnation of anyone who "aids and abets a sock account" in any way. KC's full statement doesn't necessarily imply any inconsistency in her viewpoints on the two situations, but your abridgment creates what I think is an incorrect representation of her statement, which you've then leaned on as the basis of your allegations of inconsistency or double standards. MastCell  19:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain it for you, a bit more slowly:
1. A number of admins - of which I was one, but not the first and far from the only - felt grave concern that an admin had known another admin was socking abusively, and had concealed it. Not only that, but that the admin had allowed the other to sock a debate in their favor, and had gained advantage from it and concealed the stacking, allowing repeat stacking a second time. The socking admin was their wiki-friend. The socker was later desysopped.
2. You (and I, and anyone) may differ about whether the socking was "really" socking and "really" abusive, or whether the concealing admin "should" have said anything or allowed themselves to appear to take benefit from the abuse of a wiki-friend.

3. Regardless of personal views, Arbcom determined the socking was abusive, and the concern that an admin allowed themselves to gain by concealing the socking of a wiki-friend, is a legitimate and valid concern, if some users hold that concern, even if different people will have different views.
4. Dispute resolution was followed properly. Discussion was held on the appropriate talk page, and when unsatisfactory (in multiple users' eyes) moved to RFC. Again, I was not the first to certify the RFC either.
5. Dispute resolution is sacrosanct on wiki. It's our means to work as a community. Admins more than most users know this. It is fact and evidence based. A concern is taken to RFC because those with the concern wish high quality community review and consideration, rather than bickering, and RFC is how we achieve that. Users (and admins more so) responding at RFC are under a duty or expectation to review the evidence, inform themselves of the case, speak to the evidence neutrally, and help resolution by providing high quality input.
6. The first two admins to respond on this serious, multiple-admin requested, and strongly evidenced issue, were Jehochman and KillerChihuahua. Both posted to speak in spoke in an untoward and unhelpful manner, that ultimately ensured this sensitive RFC did not to gain the review which dispute resolution is intended to give. High quality responses by them would have probably made a big difference.
7. Following the RFC the two each admitted they had done so without caring to read the evidence. Both admitted the evidence could easily be 100% correct. Jehochman made statements that showed his posts at RFC were grossly at odds with his private knowledge. KillerChuihuahua accused others (unsubstantiated) of attack, accused (unsubstantiated) policy breach (since when has seeking clarity on a possible instance of abusive adminship following correct process and with evidence presented, been improper?), gave incredibly spurious reasons, and falsely claimed there was a "vendetta". She was asked to substantiate these with evidence or diffs (which don't exist) and unsurprisingly failed, declined, or didn't care to. Their behavior was overall highly suspect in that case.
8. Two months go by. Then the exact same two admins turn up (again together) at RFAR, seeking for heads to roll, pronouncing in the very strongest terms that concealment and deception by an admin related to socking by a wiki-friend are unforgivable, how desysopping is expected, and so on.
9. Given past conduct I have grave concerns this may not be a genuine stand, but a stance based on alliances and likes/dislikes. Not "bad faith assumption" but disgust at admins who at best are grossly derilict or lacking in wiki-integrity in their roles, and at worst played both sides depending on the party and context. I was left asking:
  • Where was this strong stance when it was someone they both knew who was more popular, who was felt by others to have concealed socking by an wiki friend in a serious matter?
  • Why did both argue in the first case on personalities not evidence?
  • Why did both admit after the RFC they had a stance before reading any evidence, and had indeed not bothered or cared to review any of the evidence before stating a view on such a serious matter in formal DR -- a striking admission from two such experienced admins.
  • Why did the exact same two admins who turned up (together) to "trash" an RFC related to admin concealment of socking, then turn up (together again) to push for the strongest desysopping in a second case of admin concealment?
10. I expressed my disgust. It was the first time I have done so on-wiki in 5 years editing, and I don't ask that you agree with it. I ask that you acknowledge my disgust as my own feeling at their common/joint conduct. I paraphrased their posts at RFAR to show just how strongly they worded it, and how exactly parallel the ideas are between the two cases. They were strikingly similar.
11. The acid test of gaming vs. integrity is what one would do, and hold, not what one says. I asked each the same question -- did they feel this strongly about admin concealment of socking, 2 months ago. I didn't ask if they agreed with the evidence, or whether they would desysop, just if their views were as strong then as now, on admin concealment of socking.
12. Both evaded the core question (which was open and did not assume anything of the answer); KC followed a pattern of: evade/distract/straw man, then when re-asked claim she was being "harassed". A very disappointing response from an admin in its own right.
FT2  03:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your issue about "final" in the second draft of the ArbCom policy

Hi FT2. Neither "final" nor "binding" fits the bill for me, since appeals (to Jimbo) are possible.

It may be best that the community take over the evolution of the second into the third draft. Otherwise, I can see this going nowhere until next year, which is unacceptable. Tony (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. Appeal to Jimbo is so rare (a bit like appeal to the Queen of England, as he likes the monarchic parallel) that it can be footnoted. For all practical purposes, Arbcom is the route of final appeal.
  2. Binding is the correct word: an Arbcom decision is indeed binding, in that it's obligatory for parties to follow its provisions. If the decision were overturned by Jimbo (or the Arboitrators themselves) later on, then it would cease to be "the decision in the case". While it's the decision, it's binding. FT2  12:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Greek user vandalising my greek wikipedia talk page

Hi there. Your admin assistance is needed here please. In the past few days I've been asking several greek translators for a translation request for a short english article in a civilized and friendly tone (e.g. here). Today, this user wrote me a reply on my greek wiki talk page, "ordering" me to "stop sending emails to every single user of this project." With "this project" he probably means the greek wikipedia. So far so good, I simply deleted his tell from my talk page. Now, this user has kept on reverting what I did on my talk page. Please check the history here. Would you please be so kind and use your admin tools to stop this vandalism on my greek talk page? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:91.108.235.143

Hi, that person is caught in a rangeblock of yours. Could you advise her about how best to proceed? Thanks,  Sandstein  20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this one. WIll review unless someone else wants to. FT2  21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination)

Hi, FT2. Since you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist), you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but I won't be posting at it. Busy elsewhere at the moment. FT2  21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. We either need to restore the history or delete the new article, since its currently represent a copyright violation in that it doesn't attribute Misplaced Pages's contributors. Since you deleted it as a BLP, I figured I'd better check with you. How do you want to handle it? --Moonriddengirl 19:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"Need for attribution" v. "removal of unacceptable revisions" is a question that's never quite been answered. It's probably due a community discussion in itself.
The current article is a substantial expansion and rewrite, but it's still based on the old version. One option is to simply undelete the old version completely, since the page was one-sided in 2008 but now is apparently not a problem (history revisions and pages starting /w/ aren't spidered). A second option is to add attribution in some other way - I'm not entirely sure how one would do that, perhaps add names to the talk page or major editors to the history, and link to it in page history? A third option is to rewrite the problem sections (but even so the unattributed copyvio will be in history?).
The bottom line is there isn't an easy answer. Full undelete may be best. Can you look at the page history, consider BLP best practices, and see what you think best? This is a known "problem area". FT2  20:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It is possible to list the contributors names in the article's talk. I know some contributors aren't happy with that solution, since it doesn't show who did what mod, but our ToU says, "a list of all authors"--which I can do. It won't be pretty, mind. :) Since it's acceptable and there are BLP issues in history, that might be best. I'll go ahead and do that, and if anyone objects at any point, we can consider full history restoration then. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Since you initiated the last RFC, I'd like to draw your attention to this. Regards, Majorly talk 13:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was already aware, thanks. I don't have an axe to grind in this battle; my focus is misconduct by admins not personal grudges. But there are issues, and they have not yet been resolved. So it's still open for consideration. FT2  15:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks

Hello, FT2--- Fainites conveyed your offer to me. I don't see my way to carrying out that action right away, but I do very much appreciate your suggestion.

Best regards, Jean Mercer (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. We aim to be an encyclopedia; using the wiki as a battleground isn't ever acceptable. FT2  00:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Rev-deleted-user

I don't think I really like this change. Yes, it adds detail on Special:Contribs, but it makes a mess of history pages... Happy‑melon 09:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue's more, that it is crucial oversighters realize that they are seeing material that is non-public. With RevDelete everything's public (although possibly greyed out), that it would be easy to slip and forget this one thing isn't. Hence the unsubtle reminder. It looks like you solved it with templates though...? FT2  09:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ParserFunctions to the rescue. This is something that should really be done in the software, tho. I do agree it's important to have a noticeable warning. Happy‑melon 09:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Reported. FT2  15:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That Orange IP range

Has an abuse report been filed for range 91.108.192.0/18? Was wondering because it resolves to Orange--surely someone there needs to know about the abuse coming from their network. From the block log, it looks like it's been going on almost unabated for two years. Blueboy96 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Amended block log to a message that asks any users to contact checkusers via the functionaries' list instead; the checkusers are aware of it (and I'll see it there too if needed). I can't remember if there's been a formal communication on it though. FT2  15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS

I've asked to drop the CU/OS/sysop bits at Meta:RFP, due to additional real-world stuff going on.

I've also unsubscribed from the oversight and checkuser lists and removed myself from being an oversight list admin, though I'll continue editing and other project level issues.

I meant to do this a while back on a couple of occasions, but have been involved in the RevDelete rollout, interface development, bug hunting, fixing of old suppression matters, sock work, etc for ages.

I've formally confirmed to AC for the record that there isn't any other issue conflated with it nor any adverse dialog or other prompting incident elsewhere.

FT2  04:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. FT2  09:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:SOCK

Hi FT2, you may have missed my comments on one of your edits. See here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. FT2  09:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability RfC

Hi FT2, please see my recent restoration of the consensus-supported version of WP:N. Regarding the recent discussion at WT:N, I agree with Gavin that some sort of RfC is needed in order to establish a consensus regarding the information discussed. Would you be interested in setting it up? If so, how would you like it to be framed? Also crossposted at Gavin's, Masem's and Hiding's talk pages. ThemFromSpace 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for guidance

I've made a request here. Why don't we wait for a response instead of engaging in an edit war? We've each done two disputed edits. I think that's already too many. Thank you. Jehochman 02:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You've added the disputed content a third time, even after I requested help from outside parties to resolve the disagreement, and asked you to refrain from doing that. I consider you now to be acting in bad faith and edit warring. I will not answer you further. Jehochman 02:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC) We seem to have reached an agreement on a collapse box with link. Jehochman 04:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be fine with an election monitor reviewing it if you weren't still happy - see comment on the principle here. FT2  04:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope you understand that I cannot properly discuss these matters without necessarily talking about third parties. I've made various undertakings not to do that, so I will remain silent and let you bash at me unanswered, if that's what you want to do. Jehochman 04:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you have finished your bashing. A few points of order: 1. I came to you in confidence for a dispute I was having with another user. I expected that you would honor our traditions that statements made during mediation cannot be used later against the user. Well, you smashed that principle to bits. To me, your violation of trust dwarfs any errors I may have made. You crossed a very bright line. 2. To the best of my recollection I had said something like "Maybe I have been X, so now how do I fix that?" You seem to have taken that as an admission by me that I had definitively done X. That was not how I meant it. Perhaps this is due to sloppy wording by me, or miscommunication. You've got the log, I don't. 3. As for your concerns about Bishonen 3 RFC, I stand by my offer to help you get those concerns addressed in an appropriate manner. 4. This entire conflict is harmful to Misplaced Pages. One of my recent thoughts has been that we should not do that which creates rancor amongst good faith contributors. I believe the damage from perpetuating this, and the antecedent, conflict greatly outweigh any benefit to be had. 5. If you think I am an inappropriate candidate for ArbCom, you are welcome to say so and vote your conscience, as may any others. However, I'd request that you not attempt to dominate my campaign pages by posting walls of text or canvassing for supporters to your view. I'm not inviting my friends to come attack you. Please give me the same courtesy. Don't use more than your fair share of space in the community discussion. Please understand that my main point of disappointment is that you broke trust. I am not perfect. It is possible I misremembered, mis-stated, or was otherwise mistaken, but I am a good faith user who has made a great number of contributions. I am allowed an occasional error and expect that when senior editors believe I've made a mistake, they discuss it with me in good faith and try to come to a resolution, rather than trying to steamroll me, or hold the complaint in abeyance until such time as they can use it to inflict maximum damage. We had submitted this matter to mediation, but for reasons unknown to me the mediators seemed to abandon the conversation. If you'd actually like to resolve this, I recommend asking them to pick up the discussion and finish it. Jehochman 14:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been taken up again with Lar mediating. I am striking the above in order to de-escalate the dispute. Jehochman 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Undue evasion, deception, or unfounded claims of dishonesty at a page like Arb Election, may well bring a repeat of the question or disinfecting sunlight. Your choice.
  • The only formal mediation you and I have ever had, was over your own conduct, in October 2009.
  • A dialog on a separate issue took place in 2008. It gave rise to serious concern.
  • Every point I stated derived from outside mediation, or was my long-term view evidenced as being held before mediation and informed to you during mediation.
  • Logs have been kept private to an appropriate degree.
  • None of the salient log snips cover anything except you and I (except a tangential mention of a case you gamed). Claims of inability to discuss are spurious.
  • Conditional comments such as "Maybe..." are basic English. Assume I'd understand.
Knowing all this, you alone decided to stand for a position of highest trust, where everything related to your history as an editor is on the table as evidence for or against suitability. Unless you fool yourself, you knew they were well founded, serious, and evidenced.
I'm done here too. We've gone as far as we can on this page. FT2  15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've suggested finishing the email discussion so that issues can be addressed fully. I do not like to leave matters hanging. Nevermind what's good for you or for me, it will be best for Misplaced Pages to put a final end to these matters and edit articles instead. Jehochman 15:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in exploring neutral examination of the evidence by a wider portion of the community. Until then, we're done on this thread. FT2  01:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question

I don't think people should have to out themselves to run for ArbCom. I am open to, if an issue such as profession is seriously questioned, to providing evidence of same as part of the identification process that a successful candidate must go through. I think Jimbo would be hard on a ArbCom candidate who made false claims to be elected. I thank you for the offer of email, but right now I'm trying to keep everything I do on the record and am not emailing other editors if I can possibly avoid it! Interesting conversation yuo had with Jehochman btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I had in mind a more general question. If you like, consider the larger questions - should any user claim credentials as backing any role, without providing a way to verify them, and, is Misplaced Pages now of a size that claims made at senior level should be verified/verifiable?
As I said, the question wasn't a pointed one, nor asking people to out themselves. We allow editors to edit pseudonymously, and to stand for any role on the 'pedia. But if a user says "I am an X in real life" and thats stated in a way that enhances standing for a role... we may remember a certain user once claimed a PhD in theology - and look what drama we had from that. The question's because I have an interest in your view, as someone who actually has stated a real world attribute in their statement. FT2  01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what is your view on the topic, as a pseudonymous editor who listed a "VP level" professional position, real-life experience "working with secure, sensitive information", and real-life mentoring experience as qualifications when you stood for ArbCom? MastCell  04:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be verified. Not necessarily made public, but yes, there should be someone who will verify credentials claimed by Arbcom/CU/OS/Steward/Board candidates, if significant. Being unwilling to verify claims is fine, but a user should then make that clear at election. I'm not a hardliner on it, but I think we need to move that way at some point. (Why?)
For myself, I offered mine in full to WMF at the time of the election, and some months later took the originals with me when I finally met Jimbo. The business/professional ones anyway (mentoring tends to be less well evidenced unless you do it for a living). He also saw my passport and driver license in original too, confirming the identification, and that the name matched the person. Point of principle. FT2  04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Slow response

I'm doing lots of traveling the next few days so I may have limited internet access. Please be patient up to a day or two if something needs attention, and consider emailing me as well. Thanks. FT2  07:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User rights

Please remove the administrator badges and claims from your userpage, per this. In the future, please pay more attention to such details. A hostile editor might use such an error to cast you in a bad light.

You made some mistakes as an arbitrator, but I assumed good faith and stood up for you against strong public criticism. Several users have contacted me on wiki or privately and told me what a fool I was. Do you think I was a fool for trusting you, or was my trust well-placed? I believe that people are imperfect. We all make mistakes. That's why assume good faith is policy. If you think an editor with nearly five years tenure, a clear block log, no adverse arbitration findings and no user conduct RFC has done something dodgy, you might consider that they've made the odd mistake, rather than grabbing your pitchfork and trying to run them off the project.

I appreciate the advice you've given me and will attempt to use it to do better in the future. I accept you, imperfections and all. Is there any chance we could stop this destructive conflict? Jehochman 14:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and editing the content of your user page. Unfortunately, there are still serious problems. You've still got a {{administrator}} template on the page. Second, the way you say "I started editing in 2004, became an administrator a while later, then appointed to the Arbitration Committee in December 2007...As a CheckUser and Oversighter I've dealt with a large number of fairly nasty sock-users" could be very misleading to a casual reader. If you are going to say that you gained these offices and rights, you should also say that you no longer hold them. "I served as an arbitrator from 2007 to 2009, and as an administrator from..." might be a good way to explain your service.
These matters are of particular importance because you are making serious accusations against me. When you present yourself in a false light, that serves to confuse third parties who may be trying to assess your credibility. Thank you for your prompt attention. Jehochman 12:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
One last catch. Thought that category was based on the template and would vanish when the template did. This time I page-searched and I'm sure I got them all :)
As for the rest, I think I've stated clearly enough and appropriately: "As of November 2009, I've stepped down as a Checkuser, Oversighter, Oversight list admin, and sysop". Your suggested wording isn't bad; I'll consider it when I rewrite that page, but at the moment it's stated in full. As for your concerns:
  1. These are tools that can be resumed by request. The bit-flags on the account have changed at my request, but no change has taken place to standing, experience, WMF and Arbcom trust, capability at complex cases, or judgment.
  2. Certainly nobody with even slight experience would find themselves misled by it in your regard.
  3. It's not intended to make a point.
All in all, thanks for noticing the template points, but I'm content with the rest. FT2  12:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for taking the time to address this. Jehochman 13:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications

We've been having an extended off wiki discussion about Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 and about the election pages. I'd like to summarize a few thoughts.

  1. I consider us to be friends, and I've supported you against long odds. The Misplaced Pages community does not fully appreciate the values you bring to the table. I wish that your critics would be more tolerant of different personal styles, and give you credit for the good work you do.
  2. In the recent past I've had concerns about your good faith. Upon discussion and investigation my concerns are resolved, and I have retracted any such claims.
  3. At the above RFC, I posted a view that was not proper. I now recognize that my remarks placed you in a bad light, and prevented you from having your concerns addressed by the community. I feel strongly that legitimate concerns should be heard, but in that RFC I undermined your legitimate concerns and imputed poor motives, rather than helping resolve them.
  4. You've told me several times in the past, and I accepted, that you are not a grudge monger. I regret suggesting that you were a grudge monger.
  5. My private statements to you did not accord with my public statements. In private I suggested that your concerns might be 100% correct. In public, I took an excessively hardline approach that marginalized and disparaged the legitimate concerns of yourself and other users.
  6. I believe the concerns you expressed in the RFC should be addressed on the merits and on the basis of the evidence. Other parties may have drawn an incorrect conclusion that I'd evaluated and rejected the evidence. In fact, I did not consider the evidence at all.
  7. I have retracted any negative claims I made about you on the ACE2009 pages.

I am sorry for the inconvenience resulting from these matters and hope these clarifications help set the record straight. Jehochman 01:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)