User talk:Hipocrite/11/2010

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to your question..

If anyone tried to do that and filed an enforcement request, I think they'd be slapped with a King Kong sized trout. Now, as for that person you wanted to know who you had to kill... (kidding) SirFozzie (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

LivefreeordieNH

Thanks for writing up the report. I'd just finished my own when I noticed LivefreeordieNH had already been blocked. You should probably fix his reverts, I've already done 3 today. Matt J ^User|Talk 21:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I roll. Use the talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not like I have any particular interest in this article, but it's wrong to leave it how it was. And who exactly would I be discussing it with, the guy that's been banned for 72 hours? But it's irrelevant now, someone else has reverted it. Matt J ^User|Talk 10:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Bigdelete"

Use of bigdelete does not seem to show up in our local deletion log; likely because it is an action limited to stewards on Meta. Perhaps the developers need to make our EnWiki infrastructure more robust, but no suppression was ever going on here. -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of that - thanks for the info. I'd like to discuss with bigdeleters about leaving deletion log notes when they bigdelete something controversial (as opposed to routine). What's the best way to address them? Hipocrite (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Being that the "bigdelete" bit is only given to stewards, I'd suggest either meta:Stewards' noticeboard or stewards-llists.wikimedia.org. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. –xeno^talk 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for offering to help others in an open-ended mediation context. I would imagine that this is a sometimes thankless task which deserves acknowledgment. --Tenmei (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI - CBS News

Hipocrite - regarding Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Believer - if you contact CBS News yourself, they will say the particular broadcast (called "Werner Erhard", from March 3, 1991) is unavailable due to "legal hold". They say nothing about "factual discrepancies". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is why youtube placed their "removed because of lawyers" boilerplate on it. However, since I'm well aware that the-powers-that-be believe that civil POV pushing is more valuable than strident encyclopedia support, so I've said everything I intend to say on the issue. Hipocrite (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

I am blocking you for one week for disruption and a violation of the spirit of your topic ban, and frankly gaming the community's patience here. Arbcom and the community have made it clear that the battle is over and that attempts to pursue it by other means are not to be tolerated. You are too intelligent not to know that this is gaming and trolling that can have no good effect.--Scott Mac 22:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good block. All the more because Hipocrite has been very clear about his intent to respect the spirit of the topic ban. Surely you're too intelligent not to understand the Catch-22 into which Hipocrite has been placed? I can't honestly believe that the ArbCom topic ban was intended to prevent Hipocrite from voicing his opinion at an RfA. To my knowledge, ArbCom has never countenanced that sort of disenfranchisement. MastCell ^Talk 22:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As a random passer by I have to also say that this block was uncalled for. He was not disruptive, he didn't get into anything about the subject on which he was topic banned, he just expressed his opinion about the adminship of the person at hand. I don't believe it was anyones intention to say that he could not comment on adminships, just that he should stay away form climate change. Thenub314 (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|Could someone please bring this to the attention of WP:BN, User:jc37 and User:HJ_Mitchell, who have an obligation to unblock me? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)}}

I don't believe I ever agreed with that (and indeed, called it "baiting" when NW also brought it up).

That aside, I would certainly unblock, if you indeed contacted arbcom as we discussed, and they did inform you that it was fine to comment as you have thus far. Though obviously an arbitrator could just as easily do that themselves (rather than merely confirming here) if that is the case. - jc37 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted one party requesting assistance with phrasing a request to arbcom that would not violated my restrictions. I had not yet contact arbcom - nor had I commented again about defending my oppose. Hipocrite (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sincerely tempted to unblock, but would need the assurance that you wouldn't further comment in the RfA in question (or similar situations) unless/until such as I've described above. - jc37 22:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been made clear that I am topic banned from every user who has dealt with climate change. If unblocked, I will consider myself interaction and topic banned from anyone who has ever written anything about climate until such time as I have arbcom clarification. Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

SM's assertion that I have been skirting the edges of my topic ban is false. In fact, two arbitors specifically noted that I had not skirted the edges of my topic ban earlier. Hipocrite (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As blocking admin, I am currently reviewing this. Can everyone give me a minute or three?--Scott Mac 22:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that you are considering apologzing to me for your false assertion that I have been skirting the edges of my topic ban? Hipocrite (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have unblocked you. I am willing to apologise that my given blocking reason was poorly stated and inaccurate. I saw you behaviour on RFA is improper, and I still do. I believe it is gaming a topic ban and pushing at the community's request for the battle to cease, if you oppose someone to Climate change grounds, and then draw attention to that fact by not stating why. Abiding by the spirit of your ban, and the community's request should have caused you to body-swerve that RFA. You must have known that this was going to be controversial. However, I used the same blocking rationale as that I used with WMC. That was wrong. WMC has already violate his ban in the past, I see you have not. I was careless, and tarred you with violations that you have not committed. For that, I apologise. Since you've now indicated that you will stay away from CC users, pending any clarification from arbcom, there is nothing to "prevent" here, so I've lifted the block [1]. I suspect we will still disagree here, but where apology is offered it is genuine, and I hope you can accept it.--Scott Mac 23:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you intend to block ATren also? Hipocrite (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I reported my block to ANI for review, and suggested my belief that other blocks might be justified. Since my blocks are hardly being universally endorsed, I think it would be unwise for me to take any further action. I leave that for others to consider.--Scott Mac 23:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To any concerned/interested: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Climate_Change - jc37 23:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So

I did exactly what you asked for (except, I don't do backroom deals so I posted on the appropriate arbitration wikipage). You may note that the first response from an arb states neither that what I already did was acceptable, nor if it was wrong. It dosen't clarify if I can provide substantiation, or if I may not. The only adminstrator who has been willing to state with any clarity is in the process of being raked over the coals on both WP:ANI and in a related arb-request regarding tool abuse. So, what exactly would you have me do now? Hipocrite (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've asked NYB to further clarify (before you posted here). But besides that, wait to see what other arbs say.

That aside, his point about common sense may be well taken. If in your shoes, I think I would have looked for a way to constructively express my concerns about the candidate. But having watched how you've (imo) badgered several people now in relation to this, and how you're coming across (though I can understand if you're frustrated with the situation), doesn't seem to reflect positively upon you, or inspire a great amount of good faith. And I say that noting that I was willing in accept in good faith that you would abide what you averred on your talk page, and unblock you. And noted so on the blocking admin's talk page.)

Anyway, I think the best you can do at the moment, is sit things out, and look to the page you chose (that it wasn't the clarification page, surprised me - but then again I was not/have not been involved in the CC situation.) - jc37 00:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Block yourself for 10 days and see how you react. I've never renegged on any of my promises, and I am shocked that you think my "badgering" (ps. what badgering, and in relation to which "this" - I don't see it, which probably means that I'm blind) people means that I'm untrustworthy - but, of course, it's time for the admins to close ranks. Let me just inform the mediation that I just picked up that they can pound sand and I'll take another month off like I did the last time this garbage happened. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) - I didn't say that at all. I said that imo the appearance of badgering (and really the "baiting" demands at WP:BN, too) may lead others to not AGF of you at this time.

As for "closing ranks" (whatever that means) At the time of posting, I haven't discussed this with anyone off wiki, and my contribution history is there for anyone to see...

In any case, I hope you enjoy your intended Wikibreak. - jc37 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand - you are angry that I tried to line up people to unblock me if I was blocked for doing what they wanted me to do - and then, without even going as far as to do that thing, when I was blocked, you think that I was wrong to try to line up some people? AGF is, at this juncture, appearing to be more and more a suicide pact - people, like yourself, appear to use it, but when I'm blocked, the person who blocked me assumed that I had been toeing the line with respect to my ban. Oops! Hipocrite (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not angry at all.

And I personally wouldn't characterise your statements the way you just did. To do so, makes it appear even more that it was gamesmanship of a sort.

I think that you could have achieved the similar ends without the "demand" that someone "pledge" to unblock indefinitely. that's baiting, among other things, and in that I think SM's right, I sincerely think you know better.

And AGF is subjective, no question.

Look, I get that you're frustrated, and not just with today's events. And considering you're involved with mediation, I doubt you need me to suggest things like agf, and rattle off some wikiquette platitudes.

And maybe your initial instinct was right and a wikibreak might be helpful. I dunno. Atm, I think you can probably assess that well enough yourself.

In the meantime, wait and see. Hopefully the arbs will comment on the clarification part of your request at least, even if they (as NYB seems to have done) dismiss the need for the amendment. - jc37 00:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry there are admins hanging around the AE with no common sense. Probably kids trying to appear important or people who are trying to exercise their POV via their admin positions. Don't let them get to you. Polargeo (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

9/11

There are always plenty of SPA's and "truth" peddlers to deal with at 9/11 articles...the community allows a little more wiggle room when dealing with those wackos...you're cordially invited to join in the commotion.--MONGO 03:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)