User talk:FT2

Hi,

I'm FT2. I mostly edit on the English Wikipedia, and keep my main user and talk pages there. I'm a past Arbcom member, Checkuser and Oversighter on enwiki (I requested to step down from the last two in October 2009), with involvement in rollout of RevisionDelete and other tools and proposals there. If you need a hand with anything, or want to reach me, please ask.

You can also reach me by email too.

Thank you

FT2

Rewards and awards

Hi there. I noticed you editing your user page on recent changes. I saw you added "Recognition and enhancement for established users - maserclasses, enjoyment enhancement, etc.". You might be interested to look at editor awards and rewards. --Bodnotbod 11:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Influence of strategic planning

[1] I'm sorry if I misrepresented your words. Feel free to change them in my contribution too if you like.

Off-topic: perhaps it didn't show from my edits, but I do agree with you. Yet I have to admit my own expectations for the influence this strategic planning will have in practice have never been high. In fact, I was convinced to participate only after a long IRC conversation with the chairman of Wikimedia-NL. Though I like the ideas raised here, I still don't see how we will make a difference. It may explain why I got so theoretical/philosophical at first. I think it has worked out well though, seeing we now have this practical feedback plan to propose. Woodwalker 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like a decent edit.

My views cover a range. They vary between about 3 views/approaches:

• When you're talking about tens and hundreds of thousands of people, including many newcomers, it's easy to overestimate. Most users follow the river-bed. Carve the river-bed better, it'll become followed;
• A systemic view (similar to this) that there are changes that will have a truly pervasive effect that can be built on in future. Finding them may take thought;
• A view somewhat like Bhneihouse's. At worst, if it's intractable, we may end up with a situation where we shed a large number of people who can't/won't handle a given culture shift, in order to ensure the project can be better sited. But that's very much a last resort and best avoided.

I'm an optimist, but a realistic pragmatic one :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't answer straight away. I agree with most of what you write. I still don't see how we are even going to reshape the riverbed though, but I like to be surprised :-) . Regards, Woodwalker 13:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

I'm awarding you this barnstar for your incredible summaries of the Wikipedia Quality Task Force. Really amazing stuff that obviously took a ton of work and that will really help propel this conversation forward. Thank you! --Eekim 19:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving my contributions

Thanks! I admit I am still gewtting used to the liquied thread stuff, and it is not yet clear to me (or obvious) what is archived and what isn't, I fear I am still commenting on archived talkand trying to figure out where the current discussion is (especially with so many threads) but I appreciate your help, thank you, Slrubenstein 15:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

commons.css

Hey FT2:

I'm sure you know what you're doing and I'm not trying to questions, but can you explain [2] this to me? I'm just curious what it does. Intellectual curiosity, not anything else.:)

Thanks! ~Philippe 17:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

These are the global css and script which are used in collapsible boxes ("navboxes") and preformated tables, which are often useful in discussion threads. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! ~Philippe 20:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Treating people as if they are coming back?

Do you agree with Filceolaire's comment here? 99.27.200.154 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs and shared IPs mean that in most cases the idea of a "user with useful statistics" is going to be extremely inconsistent. There are some examples, but in general moreso than a logged in user, an IP editor can easily be a newcomer, a banned user, an experienced editor, or any other kind. There is often no certainty of history to judge them by. IP editing is undertaken by users who are new, and also by users whose past behavior has been blocked or sanctioned. A new editor should be treated with respect, but a blocked or banned advocative user should have their edits rejected if they try to add them via an IP. Beyond that I'm not sure what point he's making. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether you agreed that anonymous contributors should always be treated as if they are going to be returning contributors. You gave several answers, but it's not clear whether you agree with Filceolaire's statement. I'm sure you know that all of the major projects have a policy of welcoming returning editors, even banned editors, if they address the behavior problems involved with their bans. (E.g., "no binding decisions," "clean start under a new name," "consensus can change," "anyone can edit," etc.)

In any case, I believe this thread represents "substantive and significant deliberations" about recommending that the Foundation clarify their stance on the contributions of anonymous users. Do you; if not, why not? If we disagree, is there anything that gives you the right to delete Philippe's along with my contributions?

By the way, what do you believe constitutes "substantive and significant deliberations" and on what grounds do you consider the recommendation that the Foundation clarify their stance -- at the heart of one of the widely recognized perennial issues -- as "fringe"?

I intend to remain one of the seven active participants in the Quality Task Force, and I'm wondering if you have any objections to that. If you do, I would prefer that we address them now rather than later. 99.27.200.154 02:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of points arising from this. I'll turn to IP editors in a moment.

Your link about "substantive and significant deliberations" is not a link to any substantive taskforce discussion. There is no evidence that this was a mainstream debate by taskforce members. It's a link to your own thread to Woodwalker, and the ensuing short discussion where he concludes "this project isn't a soap box for broadcasting your personal POV... at the moment I oppose your membership because of your aggressive way of trying to get your own view into a page that reflects the common position of the task force". [emphasis in original]

To underline this, I would also not consider it substantive and significant discussion if taskforce members show they do not visibly see it as a major point to be pursued. In other words, not everything is significant enough for reporting. It's an overview of our inquiry into quality, not "everything that someone might raise".

For my part, you are welcome to participate in taskforce matters, but we have an agenda and that agenda is not especially aligned with a focus on the area you have asked about. If you can work to further our agenda and you are seen (by others responses) as adding value to the taskforce, you're welcome. However if Woodwalker's concerns were to be confirmed you would probably be asked not to contribute to it in future.

As for your actual question, you are asking something that's too general for me. Anonymous (IP) editors cover a wide range of users, from the best to the worst. A number of blocked or banned users reform; others return but resume disruption, or indeed never ceased improper editing in the first place.

Under those circumstances asking me to state whether all IP editors should be considered as one thing or another is a gross generalization. Show me an IP editor who edits responsibly and has the trust of the community and I'm happy; show me one who edits irresponsibly or is a source of visible problems and they will probably be warned or may be blocked. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you mean, when you suggest you want to exclude the un-common, that you are referring only to disruptive behavior problems, not content disputes. Where do you draw the line? How do you treat people whose only behavior problem is that the truth on a particular question has become less than common in an atmosphere where the common are motivated by financial, political, religious, or ethnic interests? It looks very much like some have been accused of a behavior problem for no other reason than that they had an uncommon stance on a content dispute which happens to be in agreement with the facts. I am certain that the community will recognize this, but sometimes it takes time.

A community comfortable dealing with anonymous and returning users is a community more able to make accurate judgments based on content rather than authorship. Treating people as if they are returning leads to enhanced quality. It has the added advantage of removing the difficulty of trying to judge people by their past actions instead of their current work, and is therefore consistent with ideas of forgiveness and harmony. The set of questions where people are so certain of their positions that they are willing to make accusations and attacks against the other side are usually caused by ethnic, religious, political, or financial interests which the community needs to be able to answer accurately, or quality will suffer. That in turn leads to vastly more opportunities to improve content. So anonymous review and contributions are both essential for accuracy and therefore quality, and correctly answering controversial questions.

I ask that you please reconsider your opinion on whether the task force has had substantive and significant deliberations on this topic. In the alternative, please count the number of discussion messages pertaining to the question, because I believe your representation of the proportion seems fewer than I thought I saw when I reviewed the discussion. 99.55.162.180 15:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're misreading it. I have not said I want to "exclude the un-common" in behavior or disputes. 1/ It's based on Woodwalker's words not mine, 2/ his actual words in context were "at the moment I oppose your membership because of your aggressive way of trying to get your own view into a page that reflects the common position of the task force". It means common views formed by the main taskforce members, not anything to do with Wikipedia reference wiki editorship or Wikimedia disputes. Reread my words carefully, and see if that helps; your reply sounds like you've misunderstood it.

As to your last paragraph, I repeat what I said at the top. Show me a link to any substantive taskforce discussion. There is no evidence that this was a mainstream debate by taskforce members; and the link you gave me is your own inquiry to Woodwalker, which any person on the plabnet can ask, which 1/ isn't a taskforce discussion, 2/ isn't a significant taskforce discussion, and 3/ appears if anything to be rejected by him. My opinion is based on the deliberations of the taskfroce as a team, and I've left out a lot of these already to focus on major points the taskforce has engaged energetically upon. If you can show me a thread of similar engagement and energy by the taskforce, which I've missed out, or a number of smaller threads showing energy and engagement which together appear to have similar impetus as the existing included matters, I'll gladly fix it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable for me to ask you for what you mean by "substantive," "significant," "energetic," and, "engagement"? I see several such messages on the subject of the relationship between anonymous editing and content quality already, but I wonder by using all these kinds of qualifications, which to direct your attention. Do discussions on the subject on all Wikimedia projects prior to the formation of the task force count? Can we agree to find a neutral third party to answer these questions so I do not have to rely on your own personal judgment of your deletions with which I do not agree? 99.55.162.180 16:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a specific taskforce, reviewing from scratch its views on quality (particularly of content) on all wikis, in all languages. Its mandate is to reach a very small number of recommendations which it believes are most worth making. To do that it draws on any material developed by the Foundation that its members see fit, any taskforce members' experience and knowledge, and any other knowledge and resource materials the taskforce members consider significant. If an idea is not likely to lead to development of a "top few" recommendation, then it's unlikely to get any attention at all here.

As such, we're not looking at community debates or obligated to look at them. We are self guiding by what we feel (from experience and members' insight) is the best use of a single opportunity to make a small number of powerfully quality-developing recommendations. The taskforce members are selected for insight, though others are welcome to contribute if they do so productively, because we're working on a task, not just open-ended like most of the wikis. The weekly reports are to explain to others how the taskforce's discussions have developed. So matters that don't get much interest or active discussion and development by taskforce members don't get into it.

Jope this explains. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, can we please try to find a neutral third party to help us? I question your estimate of the number of messages meeting the plain-language definitions of the criteria you've stated, which have already taken place within the task force, the strategy wiki, and on other projects. So I do take issue with your deletions. It looks very much to me like you have been threatening to exclude me entirely, just as you have shown a willingness to exclude my text and my point of view, so I am uncertain about how to proceed. Wouldn't consultation with a neutral third party, about, for example, the extent to which discussion has already taken place on this issue help resolve our disagreement? 99.60.1.71 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit premature to me. I haven't "estimated" number of messages or anything else here. I've asked you to show me evidence of a significant taskforce member discussion on a topic I've missed, not just one person raising a matter that got minimal or no traction with taskforce members. Show me a cogent active task force member discussion of a size similar to other reported discussions, and I'll fix it. If it wasn't discussed in a significant way, then it just doesn't get in, just like many other lesser matters that didn't come up, or came up in smaller ways. Whether you raise your concern with me or with some third party, you'll need to locate a suitably serious scale taskforce member discussion either way.

Alternatively, if you feel my analysis of what belongs in the report is incorrect then you can choose any third party you like who is responsible for the taskforce setup (Philippe, Eugene, anyone) and point them to this page and ask "Is FT2 right or not". Over to you.

I'm needing either evidence I missed something, or a word from someone with say-so to tell me my understanding's genuinely incorrect. I'm fairly confident we didn't have such a scale of taskforce member discussion, or indeed almost any taskforce member discussion at all, and I'm fairly confident I'm understanding correctly how we "do" reporting. I'm open to good reason to shift those views if you feel the evidence is there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

YYour thoughts in the IRC conversation the 22nd of december

Hi FT2!

I read the IRC log from the 22nd of december and saw that you had some ideas about how smaller wikipedias could be made to grow. Would you like to condence your thoughts into some consistent unit on the local language projects talk page? --Dafer45 11:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

New Draft of recommendation document

You provided some input to the local language project task force so I thought you might be interested.

There now is a new draft of the recommendation documment, I have shorted down some sections. There is only 6 days left until the 12th of January when the recommendations should be submitted so any improvements, or comments about the relative priority would be very apprechiated. There is right now 5 recommendations and the Task Force should come up with 2-4 so is there any of them that we should drop? --Dafer45 16:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Next steps (again)

Hi FT2,

Thanks for all of your contributions to the strategy wiki to date! The strategic planning process wouldn't be where it is today without all of your help. Your early and frequent support was invaluable, and I want you to know how much of a difference that you made. I hope you'll continue to work towards finishing the plan...

We're about to move into the third and final phase of the process, and in many ways, this will be the most challenging. I'm hoping you will continue to be an active presence in shaping the movement's five year strategic plan.

Here are some concrete suggestions as to how you can help moving forward:

• Add your name to Strategic Planning:Hosts. This just formalizes what I think has been true all along; that you care about this process, and that you're doing what you can to help it along moving forward.
• Help organize and improve this wiki! Starting next week (January 18, 2010), we're going to be encouraging many more people to come participate, and we want to make sure this wiki is as presentable as possible. A comprehensive list of things to do is at Strategic Planning:To-do list.
• Invite people to participate! Encourage volunteers to discuss Task force/Recommendations.
• Finally, we need to clearly describe what this final phase is going to look like. In particular, we could use feedback and discussion on Strategic Planning:Decision-Making.

Let me know what you think! Many, many thanks! ~Philippe 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

The deadline for the recommendations passed a couple of days ago. And as you took part in the Local Language Projects Task Force discussions, I would very much like to thank you for your inupt. I had no experience myself in the area and could only summarize those thoughts that you provided, and I am very glad that you provided them, because I think your experience now is incorporated into some of the recommendations that for a while not seemed to end up empty. I am also very thankful that I myself could learn a great deal from your input in the discussion and hope that the recommendations will be of some use. --Dafer45 20:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)