Hi (from FT2), meet FT2, currently active ArbCom member Options

[FT2]

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

This post has been edited by FT2: Sun 31st August 2008, 10:20am

[FT2]

(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.)

[privatemusings]

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.

[Carruthers]

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...)

[FT2]

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.


(Snip)

(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...)

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.