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

[Docknell]

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

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

Doc



This post has been edited by Docknell: Sun 31st August 2008, 12:06pm

[FT2]

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

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

This post has been edited by FT2: Sun 31st August 2008, 1:01pm

[tarantino]

Hi Headley.

[...]

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

[...]

FT2

Hi TBP

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

[Proabivouac]

Hi TBP

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

An excellent question to which I, too, would like to hear a straight answer.

FT2, per your earlier comments, there is much here to discuss. However, since you mentioned a lack of appreciable interaction between us, I believe I first heard of you when you showed up out of nowhere - presumably solicited from IRC - and, without warning, blocked me for a week for attempting to warn contributors that if they use their real name, they are likely to be attacked under that name on Wikipedia. Perhaps just another routine meatpuppet/adminpuppet block for you, but it made an impression on me. The second interaction between us was your and JzG's deletion of my very detailed and accurate sockpuppet reports (Oldwindybear, Orderinchaos, the first resigned, the second still an administrator) and subsequent indefinite block of my account - immediately overturned, but leaving a very false charge of "harassment" in my account history. Reporting administrators for sockpuppetry is not "harassment." So, two more questions for now:

1) Given that you're so protective of your pseudonymity, why did you join in violating mine, and in ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't fairly warn new volunteer contributors of what can happen there?
2) What benefit do you see in covering up evidence of administrator sockpuppetry and dishonesty?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Mon 1st September 2008, 1:01am

[FT2]

(Snip)

Answered in its own thread.

[FT2]

Quick comments -

You're going to have to stop referring to Mr. Docknell as "Headley." Around here we call him "Docknell." User:HeadleyDown hasn't edited WP in over two years, and that should be long enough, shouldn't it?

Noted about referring to Docknell as "Docknell" here, that's fine. I will refer to Headley the wiki sock-master as Headley, the WR editor as Docknell, and not use the one name for the other. I call him that since I'm used to him by that name, whatever name of the day he uses on-wiki.

One correction - far from not having edited for 2 years, he has edited pretty much without break from 2004/05 to August 2008. The last edits identified as him on-wiki were June 2008, and that is the customary name all concerned (including him) have consistently used.

I don't consider a mere change of nick to signify "hasn't edited".

The main reason there aren't, or haven't been, more people getting into this whole bestiality business is because of the Ick Factor, not because they actively believe that Mr. Damian and Mr. Docknell are wrong. And there is most definitely some serious Ick Factor involved.

There is an "ick" factor in some topics. "Ick" isn't a concern of mine. Careful research-based writing is (allowing for a reasonable and low level of errors). Frankly, I love the challenge of finding areas where few other people will edit. They usually need more attention, not less. But if you actually look at my early edits, say, to zoophilia, you'll notice I made brief and few edits on it, supplied evidence upon request to back them, then dropped it almost completely except for 1 or 2 responses to others' when their posts came up on my watchlist.

I also edited a wide range of other things on multiple other topics, returning to that one only when edit warring had already begun to break out on that article, which was already on my watchlist from before. I probably wouldn't have gone back to it otherwise, most likely. Life's strange.

I'm surprised to see you (if this is FT2) assume someone is a sock/one particular opponent just because they share any opinion. I thought you were more sophisticated than that.

Did I say that my basis for stating it was "just that they shared an[y] opinion", or is that just an assumption? I think it's the latter.

An introductory post isn't the place for detailed analysis, plus, that debate's been had numerous times on-wiki from 2005, for 3 years and some 60 - 80 socks, now. It gets predictable.

When I said he's subtle to detect, I meant it. But all that means is, you need someone to show you. One of Headley's annoyances is I've never told anyone except people I'm fairly sure won't leak to him, and only told people what's needed to ID a specific sock, never all of it, in case they do. Even so he's been affirmed by probably dozens of users over time -- are they all wrong? Doubt it. The evidence isn't usually trivial. They, like you, start knowing nothing and requiring good evidence. And yes that caution isn't usual, and ... that's how it is.

Of course I don't believe it of you But have you thought (playing devils advocate here) that some people are simply being tactful, or not saying they agree with the suggestion because alleging it led to some people being blocked, or because they want to stay on wikipedia? You are in a position of power on WP. It would be hard and unwise for people to publically agree or say that they think there might be a grain of truth in allegations of scandalous things about you, on the record. Just saying

Yeah, sadly some people will not be honest about how they see things. They imagine others act as they would, or as they believe others will. The idea some don't, is hard to fit into their world view.

My commitment, and I make it publicly in case anyone does have this concern - I will not take action (nor for the suspicious, will I ask others to take action) for views, concerns and other matters expressed on Wikipedia and within wikipedia site norms. I also will not import views from here, to there, other than blatant statements of intent to disrupt or do harm, or evidence relating to actual bad conduct or likely future conduct, or the like. In other words, no, I don't and won't be going "OMG THEY SAID SOMETHING NASTY SO I WILL FIND A WAY TO HURT THEM FOR IT". Thats not okay, that's not the basis anyone should have who's an admin or arb, and anyone who thought it, can forget the possibility.

I'd respect some people a load more if they'd ask thoughtful questions for good cause, rather than mere assumption.

First: welcome. If you have seen the old Star War movies: remember that bar with all the, eh, "special" locals? Well, you have arrived, welcome! (You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

Slightly more seriously, I have a question both for you and for NYB: Have you ever looked into the quite specific allegations about FeloniousMonk´s sockpuppeteering? I fully understand if you cannot say anything about the matter (it will of course be regarded as a confirmation that you have looked into it ---"quietly"-- and found it true, but judged it "unimportant" )

I could. But I gravely doubt they would wish me to buy them one.

And no, I haven't. My computer issues have been annoying, and a serious impediment, and lasted from beginning July to now. The alternatives were two laptops - one with a busted keyboard and overheating, and a borrowed one with so little memory that opening a web page is a 90 second adventure. I hope they're over, but god knows. The tech guys don't understand either (multiple components tried with multiple components). At worst it may all go back for testing, and likely I'll pull it offline for 24 hours to do testing anyway here. But today for the first time since June it passed [[Memtest]]. I wish I were as confident as memtest is. As a result I haven't done the full review on that case, which I'd have wished to. Its on my "get caught up" list.

[Vicky]

(You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

I could. But I gravely doubt they would wish me to buy them one.

Amazing! First FT2 says I'm a sockpuppet of someone who started editing months after I did, then he says "them". Does he really think there are several people behind my account?

Of course I'd be delighted if FT2 bought me a drink, though of course I'd keep a sharp eye to check it wasn't spiked. I'd also be very happy to show him why Tie and tease deserves its own article.

And FT2, can you please unblock RachelBrown as she wasn't covered by the ArbCom ruling; Dmcdevit blocked her on his own initiative on no evidence at all. (Since she hadn't edited for over a year before the ban, there could have been no "fresh technical evidence" against her.)

[Random832]

(You should buy Taxwoman a drink)

I could. But I gravely doubt they would wish me to buy them one.

Amazing! First FT2 says I'm a sockpuppet of someone who started editing months after I did, then he says "them". Does he really think there are several people behind my account?

Or perhaps he is simply expressing uncertainty that you are a woman.

[wikiwhistle]

Amazing! First FT2 says I'm a sockpuppet of someone who started editing months after I did, then he says "them". Does he really think there are several people behind my account?

I've not read FT2's posts much on wiki, but I'm surprised to see he falls hook, line and sinker for all the stories about people, not only that but I thought he'd have a smoother style of debate than bringing it up to the people concerned, or even those that haven't been accused before like Docknell.

Just a simple question FT2.

The editors here seem to be arguing against you in a very similar way.{...}
Do you feel that all those editors who are against your POV pushing should "pack it in"?

Doc

What's more, are we all socks of Headley?

[Vicky]

The editors here seem to be arguing against you in a very similar way.

That's because we're all in England with generic occupations and only six photos each.