Just a quick note. I first asked for a WR account to be set up in April, but it wasn't, and again a week or so ago (admin mail wasn't being checked). 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 woulnd'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 don't have much to say, and if theres a deluge of comments I might be some time getting to them (wiki editing and Arbcom's a full time job and I still have to balance it with the usual family, friends and work). I plan to read around the board and see what's what, before I comment on any specific matter. Last I'm aware that WP and WR may have quite different site ethics and customary approaches. If someone can advise me what are the social norms and standards expected on this site, I'll aim to write in a way that meets them.


FT2

Welcome to the forum. I'm happy to see you here.

"Assume good faith" and "Don't be a dick" usually work fine. "Don't take any accusation anyone makes too seriously unless they have some evidence" and "Remember that people you'd block-on-sight on Wikipedia have legitimate opinions here" are also fairly good ones to remember.

I'm fairly new here myself; trust me, the water is just fine, so jump on in.

Half of the people who claim to hate you (or any other editor for that matter) on this site are Bandwagon, Jumping on The. The rest probably have legitimate reasons.

It's happened time and time again though, one user here has a legitimate gripe against an admin, or even an illegitimate and misguided one, and others pick up and echo it without having any real knowledge of what they're bitching about, what's allegedly "wrong" with the user, etc. Usually they can't distill it down past "X is power hungry" or "Y is an abusive kid who shouldn't be an admin".

Again, that doesn't diminish the points of the legitimate critics. If you get anything from this site, don't fail in the distinction between the two groups, because the legitimate group's criticisms are at least worth giving a good listen, while the other's howls are not worth the toilet paper they ought to be printed on.

(Quick update - I do habitually re-edit my own posts. Not so much to "make them artificially right in the face of criticism", more to clarify my own ambiguous or partial wording before others get misled by it. But this website doesn't have revisioning, like most forums, so I will try to avoid making any but minor clarifying edits to my own posts once they get replies. If I forget, that's why - it's habit.

I'm well known on-wiki for wordsmithing my own posts - post by another admin in February. The reason is, as an arbitrator who is active in some very heavy duty disputes, being "quoted" to endorse something I don't wouldn't be good. Hence why I try to be careful.)

In the first category, people I know who will be hostile are -- the user you know as Peter Damian (I gather thats his name on WR), a banned user who I have spent 2006 to date removing from the wiki (and who surely has an account here for the same purpose), and probably though I'm guessing based on rumor, proabivouac, though we have had barely any interaction and I'm not sure why. Perhaps generic "don't like arbcom". If there are others, I can't think of them right now.

Damian has offered/accepted mediation but there is still immense hostility at present. The banned user will continue to try and stir as always and get his wikipedia accounts blocked when it's time to. And if I'm wrong about proabivouac, then pro' - let me know, and contact me to clear it up. (On public forum preferred, if it's genuine).

Your second point - indeed. People show by their actions where they're at.

well G'day :-)

(I'm not around too much.. being busy being fitted for my 'dark side' mask ;-) - and I think the best advice I'd offer for this forum is to cut to the chase.. less is more, and in my opinion plain speaking works better here! (you won't get blocked or templated! honest! :-) )

it's a sunday evening for me, and I've just spent 20mins or so looking into the UK chapter debacle... so here's a 'welcome to the frying pan' sort of question.... what the hell went on there?

cheers,

PM.

Welcome to Wikipedia Review.

One thing that you probably should be aware of is that since more and more WP regulars post here, the people who made up the "Old guard" of WR seem to feel a bit "pushed off to the side" sometimes, so you might find tension coming out of that. Please be sensitive to these sorts of issues, as although this changing environment is unavoidable, that doesn't mean that everybody necessarily likes the idea.

It's good to see another Arbcom member here, especially someone who's dealing with "off site" issues, which have become an important issue. I'm sure that you'll do just fine if you deal in a cool and professional manner with everyone, including those who have bones to pick with you.

(Peter Damian seems like a sane, intelligent and highly articulate individual to me. Have you ever considered the possibility that he's the reasonable one? I mean, he's been doing quite a bit of rather nasty cleanup work (the category "pederasty" comes to mind...) that nobody else dared touch before. I would think that you people should be giving him barnstars left and right...)

Where/what about?

Hi FT2 - welcome.

So what do you really think about bestiality as a lifestyle?

Doc

Quick answers - thanks for the heads up. I'll try to take each person's comments as they present them, and talk to each in view of their own posts, rather than assume. That might be best.

As for Peter Damian, I'm hesitant to comment as he has reacted badly to comments before, has now offered/accepted mediation, and the ideal solution is to resolve any problem, not provoke it. Equally, allowing misinformation that stands due to silence doesn't help anyone either. I've stayed silent at times because some topics just don't need elaboration on wikipedia - our main job there is to develop an encyclopedia not to engage in politics and side issues, and my main job there is to edit content, and help others do so when it gets messy. So it's a difficult one.

Within his own sphere, he seems to be a reasonable and a good editor. In this area, he is not always able to handle being in error, and sometimes makes and endorses blatantly bad content and blatantly obviously untruthful statements. If Peter Damian wishes to discuss the issue in a separate thread, I would be fine with it. Until then I am not going to open the topic, since I think his latest decision is a very wise one - it is best solved by mediation not confrontation, and I think engaging it on WR would be emotionally satisfying to him, but would not actually resolve it as well.

There is enough information on-wiki that anyone who wanted or cared, could neutrally check the facts themselves. People shouldn't edit to "push" a non-encyclopedic point of view or agenda, however noble or wrong that agenda might be. Peter Damian's visit to those topics arises from a wish to push a point of view, and in collaboration with a user who was multiple-banned for pushing a point of view, and whose guidance and agendas Damian has followed despite knowing the user is widely considered a virulent subtle POV pusher and edit warrior. That's a fast trip to problems, unfortunately.

A very warm welcome to Wikipedia Review, FT2, though I must say you were the very last person I expected to see here. For the record, I also have an account on WP with exactly the same name (as you surely must know). It is not blocked currently.

Could you be a little more specific here. You say I was 'pushing' a certain non-encyclopedic point of view. What was that?

All the best. Glad again you are here, and a warm welcome again.

[edit] Please don't let Docknell put you off. He is a good contributor, and I respect his work here greatly, but he can be a little blunt. Do excuse us all.

I'll allow the bolded parts to speak for themselves. You should be a politician.

Do you believe it is noble to push misinformation about the brain (pseudoscience) and human-animal sex on Wikipedia? Do you feel it is right to set up mechanisms to persue and abolish those who oppose those who push such fringe practices?

Doc

Hi Headley.

You're getting predictable. It took about 3 minutes of reading up on the WR backlog to ID you. I've been spotting you on-wiki for a long time before I was an admin, when I needed to collate evidence enough to show other admins why you were HeadleyDown, and that you were indeed just another edit warrior.

It makes a change to talk to you, though I doubt we have much unsaid since 2005. The ground rules are simple. Dialog's here fine, here I gather you're a respected user. On Wikipedia, the rules are as ever - if I see your accounts, I track them until I see confirmation they are you, or until I see what else you're up to, and then either at the time, or when it seems right, by myself or in consultation with others, they get blocked.

You saw what happens when I get asked to prove it. The last time was your account Phdarts, and admin Alex B and Thatcher both asked me to give them the evidence for the block. Following which Alex B posted "there is no doubt this is HeadleyDown, and there is no doubt HeadleyDown should be banned." And Thatcher confirmed that with the evidence he hadn't had before, he could verify the matter too.

For the record, you don't deny you're HeadleyDown, do you?

Giveaways here were: turning up to WR almost the same time as Damian, being the only other pusher of the above idea even on WR, Damian getting the "NLP cult" idea from you (as well as a number of your well-known memes, and your favorite "low quality but say what I want them to say" citations at Skeptics Dictionary), and having a history of contacting every user I remove for POV warring to try and coax them to "FT2 iz evilz"? It was obvious you were round, and being around, that you'd dive in. The only one.....

Unfortunately there is one born every minute, who is a little more gullible than average and really believes you. You tend to find them, use them, watch them get banned. If you have something useful to say, say it. Otherwise don't bother.

FT2

With all respect, could you engage issues here, please. It doesn't matter who anyone is on WR, we simply discuss issues.

One issue being: why is Headley Down a virulent (or 'subtle') edit warrior or whatever. Facts please.

Just a head's up. I'm not headley.

This is a newsgroup that anyone can attend. Your diffs alone betray what you are up to. I don't think we need to even go into details over any Paul Sinclairs, or NLP/finance workers of any kind.

I am a researcher though. I'm one of the many people who can smell bullshit whenever it comes calling. If someone claims that NLP is a cult, I will look up the sources. If the sources state that NLP is a cult or similar then I will pass that fact to others. Especially if it is supported by reason and other evidence.

If someone states that NLP is like scientology, likewise I will doublecheck. No surprises there.

People are indeed getting banned for doing simple research and reporting as such. You seem to be a committed adherant firmly rooted into the banning end. Fortunately, WP rules do not extend to WP review. Its funny that you seem to behave as if they do.

Concerning WP review. I came here after many months of feeling as if it was all nonsense. But I checked the diffs. Critical mass came and there was nothing more to do but to try to find some sort of redeeming set of diffs. So far it hasn't come. In fact, you have even turned up here, with nothing but sociopathic wrangling.

The web is full of pushers of all sorts. Like many normal people in the world, I think that is a cause for concern.

Again, what's all this about the views of bestialists being generally supported by scientists? Maybe my 8 yr old son should know!

Doc

Doc please calm down. Otherwise he will go back and confirm his view that WR is populated by trolls and evil banned sockpuppets. Gently does it, please.

Hey FT2, welcome.

Nice to see the bitter pill crowd has already arrived.

Well it was a bit direct. I'll try to be WPishly indirect for a while then. Eeeeww!

Doc

Guys, how about giving him at least, oh, a couple hours before leaping down his throat? Sheesh.

Yes, as I was saying.

Nowhere near the throat! Haven't even got close to fully examining the socially extended aura of reality dismissal yet. Happy to take my time.

Doc

I can't do politics. I can see other people's views even if they aren't the same as mine. For example -

* If someone has had a comment made, reacted badly, then you would expect a thoughtful person to be hesitant to comment so firmly again. Thats not politics, thats human consideration. Besides if I make a person upset to no end, does that help us when we come to mediation in a few weeks?

* I cannot imagine a single wiki problem where the aim is not to resolve rather than escalate disputes. It's a good rule for life, generaly, too. That focus is so important, I've said it many times.

* Likewise, some people's only reaction to criticism is "Must.. rebut/defend!" But often that just comes across as attacking, and provokes the dispute which otherwise if you didn't over react, it wouldn't. I could sit here and rebut comments, if I cared to. The aim isn't that. The aim is to resolve the underlying disagreement if necessary. Those who care, will figure the rest out themselves, it doesn't need me to open the topic up to a problematic level, because of a misguided need to prove something or other. if Damian wants to, he will. I'm not going to take his offer/acceptance of mediation, and respond by throwing out everything I don't agree with so he can feel he has to respond and so on. What's the use of that? He wants to edit undisturbed, I'm all for solving the problem too. Let us get on with it, if he's okay with that route.

* Proving oneself is often satisfying ("See, I was RI|GHT!")... but often doesn't resolve the problem. Everyday commonsense. This is the kind of thing expected - to be able to separate what benefits the project and helps the editors for real ("resolve the problem") from the immediate "what feels good" (must.. argue.. and.. win!)

* The last one's a view based on information held. You can agree, or disagree, but it's a view.

So no, none of the bolded parts were politics, more ordinary commonsense and thoughts.


(and Peter - saw your comment, will reply when I get back if that's okay)

That is fine. Oh, I left a message on PM here, and on WP. Could you confirm please that you are FT2 on-wiki, to avoid potentially embarrassing banana-skins. Thanks.

You will find such sockpuppetry games unwelcome on WR, FT2.

I've given you a wide range of cites, and explanations and details, on multiple occasions from arbcom election onwards. Others have too, I know. You don't see it although everyone else who's looked into it seems to - right up to the admin who asked for evidence to support the block you were concerned over. So I'm not repeating. Others can, if they wish to.

You need to bear in mind for the first 18 months of Headley's career I wasn't an admin, so I coulnd't have blocked him. So everything I spotted, had to be sent to an admin or checkuser, to look into and agreed by another user. A wide range of users have reached that conclusion, not just me. In fact right now you're about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't. So you'll have to find out for yourself, I can't convince or show you. That'll happen by seeing what he's up to through others you trust, or by following his line until it gets you where it got him. But I have to bow out, I'm not on your trust list. It's better that you ask someone you trust, another well reputed Wikipedia admin, to check and explain for you, as Alex Bakharev has tried.

I don't have any of these. All I can remember is you constantly repeating that he was a virulent sockpuppet and so on. Far from a 'wide range of cites' you did give three diffs of someone (might have been Headley) using appalling language, but so do I, from time to time, we all do. The main Headley accounts were all very well-behaved, contributed a lot of scientific content to the project, and were a net benefit. Flavius Vanillus' contributions were even better. The other cites you gave were simply pages mostly written by you, containing the same apparently unsubstantiated claims.

Bear in mind I have now checked through nearly every one of Headley's edits. I find nothing there of reproach.

On being 'about the only person on Wikipedia convinced he isn't', I had a conversation with Thatcher quite recently who said he didn't even know who Headley was. So, er...

[edit] And I'm forgetting myself again. Can you please confirm in whatever way you like, that you are actually FT2, the guy on Wikipedia, and not some practical joker (sorry to ask again).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

[edit again] To be clear, we are not talking about any RL identity question here. Simply that you are the guy who edits as User:FT2 on wiki. Sorry if there is any confusion. Otherwise, is there a mod here who can confirm identity? Thanks.

Good old Alex B. Isn't he the guy who publicly endorsed (and recommended "significant increase" of) Jimbo's all-expense-paid trips to Moscow massage parlors?

Yep, that's the one.

Excellent reference, FT2. Welcome.

Greg

It's true, I hardly believed it, but Alex does say that. As a further note, no moderator has yet been able to confirm that this account is genuine, and my question on FT2's talk page is still unanswered, so be careful!

And as for Thatcher, I've already mentioned that Thatcher had no prior knowledge of Headley. He confirmed to me that he had simply taken FT2's word that Headley was a virulent whatsit.

As far as I can remember, headley admitted to deliberately trolling, but that was years and years ago. I believe he is in or connected to the british army, by the way.

Must be true then. Look, the whole world is virulent thingumy according to FT2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

Why? Probably something to do with NLP and bestiality. Who other than a virulent horrid person could be against such noble subjects? Only a single virulent entity, meatpuppet's or any other gullible horrid spiteful stalker person who believes sex with animals is wrong. And as for picking on pederasts and pedophiles! My gawd, how narrowminded. Ban them completely and recommend daily dosage of bomis babes before even considering reinstatement. WP rules!!!

Doc







You could be right. Headley Down is a village close to Aldershot (UK), so called home of the Brit army.

Doc

Perhaps someone here should try looking through all the edits of Phdarts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Phdarts

who is supposed to be 'attacking' the pedo pages, according to FT2. They are well-sourced and thoughtful edits, and his contributions on talk space are delightfully witty. An excellent editor.

Welcome, FT2. Don't spend too much time here. (I feel like a black pot for saying that...)

Welcome to WR, FT2

Well, no, no one is required to Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF) of anyone, and the always good advice, Be Thou Not A Jackass, Too Often (WR:BTNAJTO), neither obligates anyone to Suffer Idiots Gladly (WP:SIG) nor prohibits anyone from Calling A Simpleton A Simpleton (WR:CASAS).

I hope that won't come as too much of a culture shock for you …

Not to worry, though, as I am not holding my breath …



Jon

As Peter says, we have no confirmation that this is the real FT2 posting (who doesn't appear to have been online for 14 hours) – for a site that's supposedly full of conspiracy theorists, you're (mostly) being remarkably trusting. Not to mention that any high-ranking Wikipedian using double--hyphens in space of en-dashes would be lynched by the Style Police (as would any British writer using the word "dialog").

When Wikipedia admins and suchlike sign up to the site, Somey usually confirms they are such before validating their account.

Good spot, FT2 always uses Brit English. But it's a remarkably good impersonation.



I asked for confirmation but didn't get any. The 'dialog' is very suspicious.

[edit] I see Ryan's here, why can't he get confirmation, and delete the message I left on the FT2 talk page. I have no problem if he doesn't want his involvement known. It's also v suspicious this person stopped posting here as soon as I took it on-wiki.

Personally, I think it was my Alex B rejoinder that made him (the genuine character, or the impostor) reconsider his foray here.

Very possible.

I think his apparent failure to understand the Wikimedia UK question was a bit of a giveaway.

Having looked more carefully at the FT2 text with the eye of one accustomed to perusing ancient manuscripts for authenticity, I can confirm this is the real FT2 style, inimitable, no doubt. Quotes given below, with translations.



I have made this point clear already, and I am avoiding answering your question.



You are in a minority here.



Again, others can see this, you can't. You are in the minority.



I have widespread 'community support' for my actions.



See?



Bingo! You really ARE in the minority.



Threat.



Your fault for not trusting me.



Even Alex Bakharev agrees.

Welcome FT2.

[Moderator's note: Unless there is a strong objection, this thread should be moved to "Editors" or "Bureaucracy". -- gomi]

The more influential WP admins almost always want to use Gmail accounts to register here, so we do end up taking extra steps to verify that they're really who they say they are, but there was really no question in this case.

More importantly, if Mr. FT2 doesn't want to answer questions regarding the content he's added to Zoophilia and related articles, that's his prerogative, and it would probably be best if he weren't badgered about it. It would also be better if any questions were limited to the actual content in question, rather than speculation - no matter how justifiable it might seem - about his personal proclivities. However, that issue isn't going to go away, at least not without those kinds of answers. And if that means he never posts here ever again, then maybe we'll just have to live with that.

Last but not least, any claims regarding what WP accounts Mr. Docknell uses or has used in the past should, ideally, be accompanied by some sort of rationale for it, i.e., more than "oh, it's you again." I can certainly see why Mr. FT2 believes what he believes, but at the same time, the vast majority of people on Earth believe what Mr. Docknell believes (i.e., bestiality is wrong, Scientology is bad, NLP is a crock), even if they don't express it quite as forcefully as he does. Attempting to finger him as a particular WP account isn't going to change that, nor should it.

So, did that sound sufficiently admin-ish...?

Hi TBP

For the record, you don't deny you're TBP, do you?

Rofl! I think a large section of the world's population are unwitting meatpuppets of Headley Down in that case.



? Hi FT2. Was this a typo and you meant to say wiki prefers to resolve disputes, rather than you can't imagine that ever being the aim

I don't think that is FT2. There are typos too, and although long winded he's not usually this confusing. But then I did run ten miles today.

Somey, you specifically confirm (to the best of your knowledge) that this the real FT2 (and not a cheap imitation)?