FT2 back in the ArbCom race, with lots to say about the happenings of 2008 Options

[Peter Damian]

None of his colleagues at the arbcom really seem to like him very much. JV calls him a liar, and the Wizardboy doesn't seem to care for him much either, going by his election guide.

I do hope he gets elected. The drama quotient has been getting rather low lately.

Unfortunately the ballot seems to be secret this year, so we are missing the usual jockeying and tactical voting and drama. Hopefully that will change when it is announced.

My 'winning team' is FT2, Giano, Sandstein, Off2RioRob and Harej.

[powercorrupts]

None of his colleagues at the arbcom really seem to like him very much. JV calls him a liar, and the Wizardboy doesn't seem to care for him much either, going by his election guide.

I do hope he gets elected. The drama quotient has been getting rather low lately.

Unfortunately the ballot seems to be secret this year, so we are missing the usual jockeying and tactical voting and drama. Hopefully that will change when it is announced.

My 'winning team' is FT2, Giano, Sandstein, Off2RioRob and Harej.

Yeah, God help us all.

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best. The shocking status quo of bad administership (for example) ---brickwall----rfc/u----brickwall-----------------------------arbcom may not be able to survive it. Something may actually give somewhere.

I'm not sure it's been expressed in this thread, but Off2RioRob, although a natural-born kiss-ass (between appearing 'tough' via the typical teenage snotty rudeness), is not - and genuinely never would be able to be - an admin. His block log is far too big and he can't keep it empty, and he has made too-many fair-minded editor enemies - ie he has made the mistake of making himself unpopular before becoming an admin, and not afterwards when you can do and say what you like.

How can they have a system where a nominee can bypass adminship via a secret ballot at arbcom level? Nobody seems to care what mediation experience there is in off2riorob's case, which only betrays what most of them really feel about the job.

The whole candidature process is atrocious - it's far worse than the less-than-ideal Request for Adminship, and these people are supposed to be the bottom line on difficult issues - although nothing but stupid hyper-dramas ever actually get up to their marble floor, admittedly.

They are basically hiring the new cast of Wikipedia Dynasty.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Sat 27th November 2010, 11:39pm

[Peter Damian]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

[BelovedFox]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

Everyone is gonna' say that. The vast majority of editors don't care, because ArbCom doesn't affect them. Not a single article I have ever edited has been remotely connected with an ArbCom case, for example.

[Theanima]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

Everyone is gonna' say that. The vast majority of editors don't care, because ArbCom doesn't affect them. Not a single article I have ever edited has been remotely connected with an ArbCom case, for example.

Very true. Arbcom is highly over-rated. Honestly, I can't believe how much some people give a damn about nothing.

[BelovedFox]

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best.

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

Everyone is gonna' say that. The vast majority of editors don't care, because ArbCom doesn't affect them. Not a single article I have ever edited has been remotely connected with an ArbCom case, for example.

Very true. Arbcom is highly over-rated. Honestly, I can't believe how much some people give a damn about nothing.

Well, something like ArbCom is necessary for some fields, but for a great many of them--roads, film, video games, counties, education, meteorology, paleontology, on and on--regular dispute resolution works just fine. It's not surprising a comparatively small portion of editors bother voting.

[SB_Johnny]

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

913 channels of bullshit to choose from?

[EricBarbour]

My 'winning team' is FT2, Giano, Sandstein, Off2RioRob and Harej.

You are one sick bastard.

[tarantino]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name, do a bunch of busy work for a couple of months and then play like they are managing an encyclopedia.

This message has been posted to both involved parties' talk pages in identical form. Please discuss this further at the coordination talk page, rather than on your individual pages.

Let me make this very clear. This has to stop, if not because it reflects poorly on the two of you, if not because it reflects poorly on the elections, but at the very least because it is, at this point, disruptive. You are bickering over information that the public can not see, and accusations are being traded that can not be verified by the community at large. At this point, the damage is limited, and both of you have much more to gain by shaking hands and moving on. If there is a real concern here, it should be brought to ArbCom in private. If this is only posturing, it has to end. This is neither the time nor the place for this concern to be voiced, and while I do not have the authority to compel you to stop, I would kindly ask (in the strongest possible way) that it does.

Thank you, Sven Manguard Talk 05:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name, do a bunch of busy work for a couple of months and then play like they are managing an encyclopedia.

That guy stinks of gaming-the-system-for-power.

Obviously an experienced user, 7,000 edits in the first 2 months (343 edits just yesterday),
almost no useful factual edits, generates lots of dramah, pwns Wikiproject East Asia,
and hands out barnstars to an IP address.
Whatta freak. I smell a sock of someone caballish.
(not that anyone cares, of course. )

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 28th November 2010, 3:31am

[TungstenCarbide]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name, do a bunch of busy work for a couple of months and then play like they are managing an encyclopedia.

... Obviously an experienced user, 7,000 edits in the first 2 months ...

Obviously an insane user.

[Peter Damian]

Well we finally have an explanation of the TBP account from FT2. FT2 drafted the article on Hani Miletski, emailed it to TBP, who then posted it. That is why FT2 claimed the article as his own.

Thank you for the response. Could you say what you meant when you said you had written those articles from scratch? Looking at Hani Miletski, the current article doesn't differ much from the one started and written by TBP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

After more than 4 years, specific details about this article or stub and how it was created or co-edited across email and wiki (and maybe other means, can't remember for sure but we never did voice and I probably wasn't on irc) are completely unmemorable. With the caveat that it's a guess, from the page history I would have copyedited a draft short article or long stub, he would have discussed it or maybe just said nothing and used it, then either added other stuff as I fielded email questions or did extra research after sending the first draft and sent extra emails, and such. That makes most sense. The history suggests he got a draft (or a rewrite of his draft or notes, there could have been prior email dialog) from me, then a bunch of extra copyedit suggestions filtering through one at a time in the space of 30 minutes, suggesting I was still looking up or reviewing stuff, then there's a 50 minute pause, then I added a few others. I think what that means is, after sending him a written or copyedited version he posted it on-wiki (with or without some edits), I then emailed him copyedits or extra information (there wasn't time for much discussion judging by the timing in history). After that he probably went offline or I did. I probably came back, re-read it and found more improvements and posted them myself. On collating examples of content work I'd done for RFA, I listed it as an example of a page effectively written from scratch, suggesting it was more likely my draft or a draft based on notes rather than a copyedit. But I emphasize that's a guess, I'm interpreting a very old page history based on impressions and how it apparently went. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[CharlotteWebb]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name

Mangaard would have been plausible as a (reasonably common) Scandihoovian surname, but Manguard is right out.

Moreover any candidate with more user-talk edits than article edits should be disqualified summarily.

Well we finally have an explanation of the TBP account from FT2. FT2 drafted the article on Hani Miletski, emailed it to TBP, who then posted it. That is why FT2 claimed the article as his own.

Thank you for the response. Could you say what you meant when you said you had written those articles from scratch? Looking at Hani Miletski, the current article doesn't differ much from the one started and written by TBP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

After more than 4 years, specific details about this article or stub and how it was created or co-edited across email and wiki (and maybe other means, can't remember for sure but we never did voice and I probably wasn't on irc) are completely unmemorable. With the caveat that it's a guess, from the page history I would have copyedited a draft short article or long stub, he would have discussed it or maybe just said nothing and used it, then either added other stuff as I fielded email questions or did extra research after sending the first draft and sent extra emails, and such. That makes most sense. The history suggests he got a draft (or a rewrite of his draft or notes, there could have been prior email dialog) from me, then a bunch of extra copyedit suggestions filtering through one at a time in the space of 30 minutes, suggesting I was still looking up or reviewing stuff, then there's a 50 minute pause, then I added a few others. I think what that means is, after sending him a written or copyedited version he posted it on-wiki (with or without some edits), I then emailed him copyedits or extra information (there wasn't time for much discussion judging by the timing in history). After that he probably went offline or I did. I probably came back, re-read it and found more improvements and posted them myself. On collating examples of content work I'd done for RFA, I listed it as an example of a page effectively written from scratch, suggesting it was more likely my draft or a draft based on notes rather than a copyedit. But I emphasize that's a guess, I'm interpreting a very old page history based on impressions and how it apparently went. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

[Peter Damian]

Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

No I think most people accept it.

[dogbiscuit]

Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

No I think most people accept it.

I simply don't believe that, once people have clues to remind them, that they don't remember what went on. A classic FT2 answer which puts in masses of detail and becomes less convincing rather than more.

Wouldn't it have been more convincing to say "I don't remember the exact details as it was a long time ago, but I think between us we drafted an article offline before it was posted, then tweaked it." He either worked in this style a few times, hence it was an unmemorable incident - and he could point to other examples; or it was unusual, and therefore it would be unconvincing for this to be forgotten. It is also less convincing because this was about an article he claimed authorship of so at some point he did remember writing it.

Selective memory is not a good trait for someone sitting in judgement.

[CharlotteWebb]

Everyone is gonna' say that. The vast majority of editors don't care, because ArbCom doesn't affect them. Not a single article I have ever edited has been remotely connected with an ArbCom case, for example.

I've edited several such articles without actually meaning to, so that seems nearly as dubious as Zoloft's "I've never been reverted (!)" claim. Check again.

Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

No I think most people accept it.

It's possible "most people" (given the benefit of secret balloting) have chosen to smile and nod in hopes that FT2 will shut the fuck up already.

[Peter Damian]

Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

No I think most people accept it.

I simply don't believe that, once people have clues to remind them, that they don't remember what went on. A classic FT2 answer which puts in masses of detail and becomes less convincing rather than more.

Wouldn't it have been more convincing to say "I don't remember the exact details as it was a long time ago, but I think between us we drafted an article offline before it was posted, then tweaked it." He either worked in this style a few times, hence it was an unmemorable incident - and he could point to other examples; or it was unusual, and therefore it would be unconvincing for this to be forgotten. It is also less convincing because this was about an article he claimed authorship of so at some point he did remember writing it.

Selective memory is not a good trait for someone sitting in judgement.

It's not convincing to regulars here, but I think it's convincing to many Wikipedians.

I like the way he thought of the story about sending a full version by email. Then he obviously realised that this wouldn't do, because TBP actually adds a significant chunk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=52708575 8 minutes into the edit. So in his explanation FT2 adds details like "I then emailed him copyedits or extra information".

It's patent nonsense, but clearly most Wikipedians are taken in by it, or he wouldn't have survived so long.

[Zoloft]

I've edited several such articles without actually meaning to, so that seems nearly as dubious as Zoloft's "I've never been reverted (!)" claim. Check again.

Is there some database tool where I can check to see if any of my edits were reverted?

Seems to me that if I've never been warned, I'm fairly vanilla. I do remember making spelling/grammar fixes to Liancourt Rocks (T-H-L-K-D), and nobody cared.

My deleted edits are in articles that went through AfDs and were zapped.

[The Adversary]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name

Mangaard would have been plausible as a (reasonably common) Scandihoovian surname, but Manguard is right out.

"Manguard" is about as Scandinavian as ......"Kristen" is a girls name.

As for the Hani Miletski-article; why, oh why do you ever make a draft of an article...and then email it, (out of view) to another user to post??

In my wp-history I only know of (or rather; suspect!) one other case: user A (already known as a harasser of his enemies on wp, having published attacks-articles on them...and being under special "watch" due to this..)...emails editor B (known to share A's strong political views) ....just afterwards B then publish a BLP of one of A's strongest opponents on wp. (This was the only BLP that editor B ever wrote..)

Hmm. Fishy. Stinks.

(And I say this, having found that cooperating with other similar-minded editors on articles is one of the most fun thing there is. But, if you have nothing to hide; you make a sub-page on wp, and start working. Or did wp ever charge you for making draft-pages??)

[RMHED]

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can wander in off the internet and make up some plausible sounding user name, do a bunch of busy work for a couple of months and then play like they are managing an encyclopedia.

This message has been posted to both involved parties' talk pages in identical form. Please discuss this further at the coordination talk page, rather than on your individual pages.

Let me make this very clear. This has to stop, if not because it reflects poorly on the two of you, if not because it reflects poorly on the elections, but at the very least because it is, at this point, disruptive. You are bickering over information that the public can not see, and accusations are being traded that can not be verified by the community at large. At this point, the damage is limited, and both of you have much more to gain by shaking hands and moving on. If there is a real concern here, it should be brought to ArbCom in private. If this is only posturing, it has to end. This is neither the time nor the place for this concern to be voiced, and while I do not have the authority to compel you to stop, I would kindly ask (in the strongest possible way) that it does.

Thank you, Sven Manguard Talk 05:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sven is a bit of a pompous twat . Clearly an experienced user, most likely a sock of a banned or indef blocked user. I've got my suspicions as to who they are, but really if they're seeking to be an admin they're just trying too hard and any RfA will likely go down in flames.