User talk:Indubitably

On a break while attending university. Requests will not be fulfilled in a timely manner, if at all. If there's a problem with an old admin action of mine, just reverse it or have it reversed. I don't care.

Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius. - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart</s[an> Subpages User Awards BRC Notebook Contribs Subpages E-mail Jennavecia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) *READ THIS FIRST OR YOUR MESSAGE MAY BE IGNORED* Probably not, but read it anyway. If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. If I've left you a message, you can reply there or here. If you chose to reply here, I will respond here. If there is a conversation taking place somewhere, keep it there. It doesn't need to also take place on my talk page. Such discussions will be removed. As much as I like to smile, please do not post generic smile or wikilove templates here. If you want to personalize them, by all means, I appreciate those. Otherwise, give them to someone else. If you're an admin wondering why I report to AIV, I use Huggle and the block feature is currently broken. Expect several Huggle-using admins to be doing this until it is fixed. :) If you're an admin wanting to reverse an admin action of mine, I'm typically available on IRC if I'm online. If I'm not responsive to my talk page or on IRC, and there is a consensus among admins that my action should be overturned, then do so without my input. Your protection of Global warming Thanks for your attention to Global warming. I wasn't thrilled to see the page protection, wrong version, damn it, but it was clearly needed. That set of articles has long seen admins get involved and then use their tools, I've seen an admin, for example, protect the article and then edit it to his preferred version. If necessary, I'll scare up some examples. I've asked WMC to reverse his action, warning him of the likely consequence if he doesn't. Let's hope that reason and prudence prevail. --Abd (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the note. I don't know which is the good version according to consensus, but tradition sort of dictates that we, as admins, always protect the wrong version. It's sort of required. ;) لennavecia 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC) (ec)Yes, Jennavecia, I was referring to that tradition. Protection was a reasonable move, whether or not it was optimal. If WMC thought it a poor move, he should have asked you to lift it, not lift it himself, he doesn't seem to get that. There are a number of editors active with the global warming articles, some of whom are administrators, some not, who use reverts regularly, and sometimes tools, and for maintaining content in their preferred form. A new editor will begin work on those articles and is quickly reverted, often with uncivil edit summaries, and often with reasons that are essentially, "take your POV somewhere else." I was treated quite mildly compared with what I've seen happen to others (I researched this because I accidentally came across a problem with a defective RfC, I fixed the defect so it could proceed, and then made the mistake of actually reading the darn thing, it was Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. I came to Global warming a few days ago because of an AN/I report that seemed to me to be showing that abusive behavior was continuing. So I decided to try to work on the article. I found that the Terminology section, which had been called a "train wreck," was presenting a definition of global warming that was different from what was in the source cited. (If that was done deliberately, well, PHG, a 30K editor, was topic banned from his favorite field because of misrepresentation of source.) The difference was minor, but it involved spin, a shift in emphasis in a way that could have political or propaganda implications. So I tested the waters by correcting the definition in the article to match the source. It was immediately attacked as "whitewash," the source was attacked -- even though it had been the source for that section for way, way back (I looked 1000 revisions back) -- and yet, nobody actually claimed that it was wrong. Immediately editors began changing the definition to make it something they liked more, with no justification from source. This, to me, is a sign that editors who are very sensitive to spin, to nuances, are involved, I think that most editors would look at the two definitions (what was there and the original -- which I merely quoted) and say, "You are edit warring over this? What's the difference?" There is a difference. It's spin. And that a series of editors were willing to edit war over it, with puzzling arguments that are probably rationalizations, shows that a group has come to own the article, and are trying to keep it spinning in a certain direction (in the name, of course, of preventing it from spinning a different way). From what I've seen, WMC is actually fairly mild, much more offensive behavior has occurred with others. However, he's an admin, and this is not the first time that he's used his tools where he was involved. I've attempted to approach him sympathetically, he's rejected every effort. His response to my suggestion today came as no surprise, he's done that before. Because of the old GoRight case, I've got quite a bit of evidence already compiled, should anyone want to pursue this. I was tempted to go to AN/I today, but I really think AN/I to be a poor forum for getting serious deliberation accomplished. It would be messy. I think his abuse of tools has to stop, and as long as he doesn't acknowledge that it was improper, he'll do it again, as he has done it before. It's a shame, really. All he has to do is say, "Oops!" But that seems to be difficult for him. --Abd (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Well, if your changes are backed by the source, then that's the end of the discussion. I did see where Orangemarlin said that the EPA wasn't a reliable source because it's a governmental agency. I laughed for a good two minutes at that coming from him... considering a source he threw at me for a while, and he wants to claim... well, anyway, hahaa, don't get me giggling, I have a headache. But yea, going to AN/I with this would be pointless. I've gone to AN/I over admins doing much, much worse, and nothing happens. It's just for drama and lulz, and there's no lulz to be had and I don't care for the drama. It's not a matter of him thinking it's okay, he knows he's abusing his adminship, but he also knows he can get away with it. It's not his problem. It's the projects problem, and the reason RFA is such a bitch now, because there's no way to stop abusive admins without draining one's time and energy, and then it's still not guaranteed. لennavecia 04:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC) The plot has thickened. Raul654 last night blocked an editor for being disruptive, User:Logicus, for some very minor stuff, essentially insisting on some disputed tags being left in the article, but not really to the level of edit warring over it. Without warning Logicus on his Talk, but relying on some weak comments in Talk:Global warming as being sufficient warning, Raul654 blocked Logicus, having also been involved in the article and specifically in arguing with Logicus, see [1]. Raul has heavily edited the global warming articles, but he's denying that this creates any conflict of interest. Apparently, because Raul654, Arbitrator Emeritus, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser says so, this is a Reliable Source for Policy. Definitely a royal can of worms, and at AN/I this would be worms and their excrement hitting that fan, no telling who gets covered in the muck, but definitely, a lot of actual project work would get deferred. Or ended. However, the little discussion I diffed shows an effort by two users to resolve a dispute by discussion, the precondition for a user RfC. I'm not eager to file one, but I would help with and certify one filed (for Raul654 or WMC or possibly some others if future efforts fail), unless subsequent events make this moot, just as Raul654 saying, "Oops! Mistake! I won't do that again!" I'm not taking bets. If you are going to shoot the king, don't miss.--Abd (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Raul has a history of using his admin tools in situations in which he is involved. Like speed-tracking a user to RFAR, subsequently carrying out a block himself and then later protecting the user's talk page for reasons not even he can recall. That's just one example of many. But there are some users with unruly amounts of power, and there's not really much available for the matter of checking them. لennavecia 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) ummmm. I NEVER use government agencies as reliable sources in any article I write. But thanks for laughing at me, I try to lift the humor level around here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I never claimed you used a governmental agency for a source, nor did I mention the article space. But you used another biased link, of course, you even admitted the bias of it. Difference was, it didn't say what you said it did. In fact, it did nothing to even remotely support your view. But that's a whole 'nother discussion. That said, get off my talk page. You twice lied about be willing to discuss and instead let the situation fester. Olive branches have a short shelf-life. Be gone now. لennavecia 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) FWIW I think protection was a bit of an overkill on a featured article particularly as there are several difference low level issues rather than a single dispute. --BozMo talk 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC) That fact that it's an FA is irrelevant. The more disputes, the worse, as well. WHC tells me I shouldn't protect because there are admins watching. The fact that the admins aren't controlling it is an issue in itself. Worse yet is the fact that admins are involved in it. Obviously, however, some admins don't have a problem reverting others without discussion. لennavecia 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC) There was no edit warring taking place at the time of protection over minor disputes, though there is constant use of revert-without-discussion on that article, which doesn't necessarily turn into edit warring because the other side simply gives up (or with oblique discussion like the biased government agency thing, stuff that can at least be said with a straight face, but which really makes no sense, given that this had been the source for donkey's ages, that it had been the source for the prior version, and was still the source in the early reverts, made by the same person giving that reason, and that the text wasn't POV. I.e., a blatantly biased agency, just like a blatantly biased editor, may occasionally write a piece that is unbiased). Very low-level edit warring started over my expansion of the section with full quotation from the source. (To summarize, the article previously said, in short, that Global warming is warming of the atmosphere caused by human activity -- or by the greenhouse effect, or the like. The source for that said that global warming is warming of the atmosphere, and, in common usage, warming of the atmosphere caused by human activity. I.e., the article gave half the definition from the source, which is quite obviously the definition that certain editors want to emphasize.) When it became obvious, I'd speculate, that it wasn't going to be possible to maintain a half-definition providing a certain spin, that enough editors were clear that the solution would be to report both definitions, possibly with attribution if necessary, which might create some counter-spin, the entire section was removed. That removal was a reasonable BOLD move, intended to stop dissension, though not really proper because it was removal of consensus material (in a round sense) that was sourced. This was supported through bald reverts by a series of editors, some of whom are quite familiar from my previous study of edit warring in GW articles. On the other side was myself and editors, so of whom I don't know from before, some of whom appear to be "supporters" of global warming, some "skeptics." I'm a "supporter," in fact, but that is, for me, irrelevant, because I place NPOV as an extremely high value, and do not believe that I or any group of editors own NPOV, we judge NPOV in practice by consensus, and the wider the consensus, the more likely it is that we have actually expressed NPOV. And edit warring and incivility are poisonous to true consensus. I made two reverts, almost a day apart, to restore the same version. That is two more than I like to make, one more than I'll usually make, but the second one, I really had some hope, given a lot of discussion that had taken place, would stick (and it was after the working version page had been put together). One editor, repeating the removal, did so quite rapidly, twice, with very little discussion, and no real discussion of the text itself. This is the situation you saw, and, yes, in spite of what some have asserted, it was definitely edit warring. Imagine this situation with an unsophisticated editor who simply imagines that we will follow policy and guidelines. He's being stonewalled. His arguments are dismissed with various rationalizations. (Sometimes there are very real reasons for dismissing those arguments, but those opposed to him are burned out and very tired of explaining this stuff over and over, so the response he gets tends to be "RTFM." Or worse.) So what does he do? He insists, and he believes that he is absolutely right and, of course, the community will support him. And so he is blocked for 3RR violation, disruption, and when he complains vociferously about it and with an obvious conclusion (there is a CABAL!) -- obvious doesn't mean "true" -- he's blocked for incivility no matter how uncivil other editors were to him. And, in these articles, there is a list of admins who will block, and who do block. I certainly have not done an exhaustive study of those who have been blocked due to "disruption" of the global warming articles -- entirely aside from vandals and others blocked for unarguably legitimate reasons -- but I have a fair idea of what it's likely to turn up. So WMC's claim that there are admins watching is true. And that's part of the problem. It's a bit of a Modest Proposal, but we might consider that if an admin has an article on their Watchlist, they should be considered COI for the article. Obviously that goes to far, but the point is that if one has an "interest" in a specific article, even if one hasn't edited it -- which wasn't the case here, these admins had edited the articles -- one is likely to use tools in support of that position, even unconsciously. A judgment of "disruption" requires an opinion about the status quo. Intervention with regard to admin abuse and error had become a bit of a specialty of mine, and, if you look, you'll see that I was blocked about two months ago for allegedly attacking or harassing an admin. I started a private RfC in my user space over that and, so far, the first conclusion has been that practically hysterical warning issued to me by an admin was a mistake (i.e., in fact, not warranted. I did not claim and he did not admit that it was issued in bad faith.), a conclusion reached in negotiation with that admin. (If he had been stubborn, he could see, in my RfC, what evidence he'd face if it came to a standard, open RfC. Speak softly and carry a big stick. I've dealt with him for quite some time: impulsive, but responsive in the long run, and we now have a good working relationship.) I haven't gone to the next issue, the block itself, which may be a tougher nut, but I do know that this is a risky business, and when one makes mistakes in a risky business, one can suffer harm. And I make mistakes, everyone does. Except for WMC and Raul654? --Abd (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Just another little indication of what's been going on: [2]. The AN/I report mentioned is the one that made me decide to take a look at Global warming and stick my toe, carefully, into the water to see, er, how warm it was. Turns out it was positively hot. "Unanimous" means, we must gloss, "Myself and everyone who agreed with my position," otherwise the statement was obviously false. Lots of interesting stuff in that report, here is the archive link.--Abd (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Have you met FT2? I think you may have gone to school together... perhaps sat beside each other in Being Verbose 101. XD I think it's a bit extreme to claim COI for watchlisting alone, also how does one know what another has on their watchlist? For sure, though, when one has edited an article, more than trivially, then there is typically a COI. And in this case, it was apparent. لennavecia 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Hey, isn't tl;dr a blockable offense now? Chuthya (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Definitely. It was a major factor in my being blocked two months ago. Raul654 just essentially blocked User:Logicus for tl;dr (though it wasn't exactly that simple, still, close to it). And Raul654 just confirmed that and is arguing that clear warning is not necessary. He seems to consider that criticism and even ridicule by other editors is sufficient warning.[3] Orangemarlin then wrote, roughly, "any attempt to discuss it [the block] should be taken to AN/I".... Not AN/I, I think, but maybe AN. What do you think? It's getting blatant, defiantly so, and there seems to be present risk of more blocks, hence a noticeboard. Jennavecia, of course, claiming COI for watchlisting alone is ... extreme (and besides, an ordinary user, including an ordinary admin, can't see others' watchlists, though one can make some intelligent guesses). Consider, though, an admin who has an interest in an article. But instead of editing the article, he just watches it and blocks those who disagree with his POV and who provide any convenient excuse. This would be a more powerful form of POV-pushing than actually editing the article. I'd say that a pattern of blocking editors based on some specific article could be, indeed, considered evidence of COI. It doesn't even have to be on his watchlist, all it would take is an editor who does watch the article and sends him an email. But this is beside the point, here. Raul654 is heavily involved with the Global warming article, certainly in terms of edits and, I think, in terms of users blocked, threatened, or harassed; he wrote the RfC on GoRight, which was all about global warming, and it was my reading of his quite offensive statement of the complaint that got me interested in the situation with these articles. Both he and WMC certified the RfC, but the "attempts at resolving the dispute" seemed, to me, to be several abusive comments to GoRight, made by participants in edit warring, nothing like we'd see in WP:DR. I'm beginning to think that it is, indeed, going to be necessary to take this to ArbComm. Do you know, Jennavecia or anyone reading this, anyone whom Raul654 trusts sufficiently to listen to suggestions from, someone whom I or others might be able to communicate with as well? Same for WMC? --Abd (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Why am I not surprised? On any account? Sigh. I don't know anything about WMC other than his latest ArbCom case and what I've seen here. So I couldn't tell you. As far as Raul, one name comes to mind, but that editor certainly has enough going on as it is. I really don't see the point in opening an RFAR on Raul, an Arbitrator emeritus who is still heavily active in ArbCom matters, including carrying out COI blocks on behalf of the committee. I've tangled with the ID group enough for '08. I lack both faith in the system and the ability to give a damn right now. But, Brad is back, so maybe there's hope. Good luck with it. If nothing else, the lulz will be epic and WR will have more to talk about. لennavecia 21:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC) You do understand I'm trying to avoid those 'lulz', right? Brad might be good. Anyway, thanks for your comments. --Abd (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Oh yea, I do. I'm just letting you know that it's unavoidable. لennavecia 13:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Plumbing Um...did you forget to set the semi-protection for Plumbing? It seems that you forgot, and the software registered it as you unprotecting for "excessive vandalism."[4] :) bibliomaniac15 23:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I have a killer headache, so perhaps I'm incapable of figuring this out... but what am I missing? How did I unprotect an article that, according to the protection log, had never been protected? Clearly I selected the wrong option inadvertently, but the bigger issue (because me fucking up is extremely common >_>) is why that is an option at all. o.O لennavecia 04:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Wow. First you delete a page and destroy all watchlists across Wikimedia, then you somehow unprotect an unprotected page. Dude, if I could do half of that, I'd be happy. And you told me a couple of weeks ago that you are not awesome/a legend... (can't remember which) J.delanoygabsadds 04:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Dude, srsly, I never denied being awesome! XD But I did say that I thought it was hilarious that you think I'm a legend; 1/ because I'm an epic fuck-up, rogue-ish admin, and 2/ because I'm not dead. You then went on to list some living legends, but failed to mention MJK at which point I let the discussion die. Hahaah. لennavecia 04:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks Jenna, I got my DYK here. Thanks for the suggestion (prodding). It's really a nice thing and makes one feel quite useful. You've been more than kind, lass. XF Law talk at me 06:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) \o/ Congrats! Let me know if you need help with anything. Now you gotta work on a GA! :D لennavecia 06:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 9000 More Questions Jay Vee: Sorry to take up your whole page. I want to usurp another name before I become too awesome and get typecast as XF Law. Can you help me? XF Law talk at me 06:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Do you have any name in particular you want? If it's not taken, you can just go to WP:CHU and ask to be renamed, which is what I did. If the name is taken, it can't have any edits... none that matter anyway. WP:USURP is the place to be for that one. لennavecia 06:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I will do that. XF Law talk at me 10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Whale Thanks for that - watching it was getting - well its good you did it thanks again - and its a great relief to see issue taken on your talk page with random acts of wikilove messages - more power to you! SatuSuro 03:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC) No problem. Haha, and thanks. :) لennavecia 04:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Theres a pattern that i recognised - when they arrived (random wiki love crap) in the past I always in a very bad mood and would delete them on sight - so - the whale is safe for another day - in oz/australia we have deserts that attract the same - v odd SatuSuro 04:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Ozone layer Re [5]: thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Yea, no prob. لennavecia 00:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for the revert on my user pages! Deli nk (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC) You're welcome. :) لennavecia 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Badge This badge is not mod property and not a free badge this badge has a Copyright. we own the copyright to this badge the information on how this was all made possible will be released very soon. We have a letter from the Queen saying thank you to us on the day the Queen in our presence gave the second badge made by ourselves to a SBS soldier. THE first badge that was issued will all come clear from the book and website under construction.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.97.94 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.235.156 (talk) I've responded on your talk page. لennavecia 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC) FUCK YOOOOOOO