This is an archive of past discussions with User:NuclearWarfare. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've just removed this as a result of the RfC. I notice that you set it up in result of an OTRS. Just letting you know, in case you need to do something particular with it. The semi-protection is still on. GedUK15:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Eh, I would prefer that pending changes be kept on; the semi-protection has been bypassed in the past. Did the RFC really say "remove all PC"? NW(Talk)16:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, Brad did leave some wiggle room within his close, though inevitably there's some discussion. Your call. GedUK11:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have never really made wide use of Pending Changes for any OTRS work, so I only had to really re-add it to two pages, one of which was Russell Grant. NW(Talk)15:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
NFCC mentorship and roadmap to get topic ban lifted
I know you were involved in the ANI case and would like for your advise/suggestion. In order to get the topic ban lifted, I am propsing aa stage by stage roadmap towards the lifting of the topic ban. Maybe a page where both me and the mentor can carry out an accessment and countersign it? What do you think? I think that would be the best way forward. I have started User:Tyw7/topicban appeal. Also, can you be my mentor/can you suggest who would/could? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea. I'm probably not the best person to be your mentor though. Perhaps you could try asking someone who you know disagrees with you to be your mentor, such as Treasury Tag. If either you or he is not willing, might I suggest asking HJ Mitchell? NW(Talk)21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sorry to say I could not follow the directions for applying the tag. Does it go at the top of the Apollo 13 talk page? This: This template should immediately precede the signed text of the request. sounds like it goes on the RfC page, but I don't see any templates like that there. So sorry so dumb. Yopienso (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. In addition to all that, perhaps you could write a note at the top of that section saying something alone the lines of "In addition to the sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee in this case, the Community has independently imposed further sanctions on the case in these discussions: (links)"? NW(Talk)19:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. I decided to leave 'Sockpuppetry' and 'Final remedies for AE case' undisturbed. Just relocated them to the top of the log since those sections may not need to be frequently updated. I did not move any of their violation items into the main sequence of admin actions. I did not rename the 'Final remedies' section since there is no need to reopen any past issues. I think it should now be clear to any admins trying to do enforcement what the rules are, and that's probably what we care about. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your decision in this deletion review. The consensus was clearly in favor of restoring the history. There was no consensus that all 73 revisions in the history needed to be suppressed. I'm an admin, and I reviewed all 73 revisions and I didn't see anything in the history that obviously needed to be suppressed. There might have been something that possibly needed to be suppressed, but I doubt it appeared in all 73 revisions that were revdeleted. --Metropolitan90(talk)16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
My close was more a technical close than anything else: enforcing Courcelles' decision to delete the previous versions of the article while still maintaining the attribution history, which is what I thought most editors were requesting. If Courcelles is fine with it, I would be OK with you or any other sysop undoing my revdeletes or reopening the DRV. NW(Talk)16:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear any argument supporting the idea that Newyorkbrad didn't add that part from his own personal judgment rather than actually deriving it from the contents of the discussion. I'm not seeing any support from that on the RFC talk page.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I frankly don't give a damn. Until things are settled and a new formally expressed statement of consensus is promulgated by an appropriate party, you shouldn't even think about overruling an action taken pursuant to the current status quo. NW(Talk)21:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I tried to look for some open source beer, but I was reliably informed that it tastes worse than Four Loko. And because we are a respectable reference source that still manages to remain open for every single person on the planet to edit, user, and redistribute at will, I cannot sully a page on Wikipedia, not even a user talk page, with a commercial product. NW(Talk)20:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You can make an open-source variant of Four Loko by combining blue raspberry Gatorade, high-fructose corn syrup, vodka, and crushed-up NoDoz tablets. It's the LibreOffice of caffeinated alcoholic beverages. MastCellTalk20:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's plenty of drinking going on at Koninginnedag, presently at FAC and needing reviewers. And usually the drinks are dyed orange. Hint, hint.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I've started undoing vandalism on Commons in free time. Do you think I could apply for rollback rights there? If yes, can you handle that? If yes, should I post at your talk there? Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not really sure if you are in fact an administrator at AE or not, but I am posting this message anyway since I found your name among the decision-making administrators in AE cases. If it's not too much to ask, could you please review the AE case on MarshallBagramyan? The whole case is based on an imposed indefinite restriction for not labeling authors any names or dismissing them based on their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or similar general characteristic (and the report clearly said “This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions”) and violation of another topic ban earlier in 2010 when the user violated his ban twice and went unnoticed? The reported user MB has taken this report out of context by posting long blocks of replies which had already wrote last time he was reported and diverting the attention of the readers and administrator away from the subject which is an imposed ban and his violation of it. All I am asking is for administrators to take action on the violation of restriction for fair and just decision. Angel670talk17:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I am an administrator. However, I do not have the time nor the inclination to review that request. Hopefully, other administrators will do so shortly, if they haven't already.
I won't be declaring either way, sorry. It is well-written, but the issues that remain are not those that I feel right about commenting on. NW(Talk)15:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Make prompting for a missing edit summary the default
I don't like to pester, and I'm always grateful for anyone who closes complex debates - regardless of whether or not I agree with things. But... can you clarify how you get your figures of "Between 42% and 71% in support with 95% confidence" ?
From following the debate, I got the impression that there was enough support to go ahead. And I disagree with your notion that it would put off new editors; I really don't believe there is any danger of that - in terms of genuinely productive editors; it's really not much to ask, at all, that they just put in a couple of words saying what they've done. In fact, it could well help new editors - because it'd make page histories make more sense.
Anyway - I do not intend to start the debate all over again, here on your talk page - I'd just be grateful if you could elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusion. Thanks a lot, Chzz ► 04:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that those who commented are a sufficiently random sample of Wikipedians, it's fairly simply to generate a binomial proportion confidence interval using a normal approximation interval with 25 supporting and 44 in total commenting (25/44 = 57%, which you should see to be about the average of the two endpoints). That's actually rather a poor assumption to make, so really I shouldn't have included it at all, at least not without a note. I just wanted to highlight how tenuous any connection of even claiming majority support among Wikipedians is.
Anyway, I really can't agree with the statement that all "genuinely productive editors" will take the time to add a proper edit summary. Some will for sure, but others who are just trying to make a spelling fix or are on a slow internet connection might just say "forget this" and do it later. Even that latter example represents only 10% of new contributors, that's 10% that we really can't afford to lose right now. NW(Talk)15:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that; I take your point about the stats, and I think we're probably in agreement that far too much emphasis is put on numerical !votes. I'm sure if I wanted, I could do some kinda of 'analysis' of that debate (mathematically) and show...well, whatever I wanted, by e.g. 'weighting !votes according to edit count' or some other spurious notion; that's how stats work, really, and must be used with extreme care in evaluating data from an open discussion.
I think we need to be ultra-clear here, that we're discussing two separate issues - our opinions of the proposal itself, and a discussion about your evaluation of the consensus shown. As it is critical we do not allow our opinions to influence our appraisal of consensus, I hope you won't mind my making a couple of sections here. Chzz ► 09:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
On the latter part: That's definitely true. The problem is that evaluating consensus ultimately relies on analyzing arguments, and the line between doing that and supervoting often doesn't exist in a way that everyone can agree on. I am interested to see what your analysis will be. NW(Talk)04:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion re. make prompting for a missing edit summary the default
I honestly do not think we'd lose lots of good editors, by turning it on - if someone is fixing a spelling (OK, on a slow connection) then the extra keystrokes and effort for typing e.g. 'sp.' in edit sum is so trivial, I do not think it would have any meaningful detrimental impact.
It's quite possible that more of such editors would stay - because, if there were better edit summaries in the page history, it'd be easier for them to see what had happened in the past.
Quite simply, though, we do not know; it appears that your gut feeling is, that it is a net negative - and mine is, that it is a net positive. How about if we tried to run a test - surely that should be possible; to take a random sampling of an appropriate size (which shouldn't be many) and insist on edit summaries for them, for a short time - and then compare their edits to a control group, to see if it'd discouraged them? Chzz ► 09:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Anything is possible - whether or not we can persuade devs to do it, remains to be seen. But, it isn't totally unheard of; recently (couple of weeks ago? I think) some users were randomly chosen to see the 'edit' link on the left of sections instead of the right, to gauge whether another user-interface mod was better. I'd have to investigate details of how they did that - but it proves the possibility exists. Chzz ► 07:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
While I expect the net effect of default prompting to be beneficial, I also expect that effect to be modest. The main effect I hope(d) for is that fewer good-faith edits by IPs are just reverted like that, simply because the intention is not understood – a known problem that is thought[by whom?] to have an off-putting effect on potential new editors. Now that presumed effect is hard to analyze (although one might test the hypothesis that fewer edits get reverted, but even then we don't know whether it does increase new-editor retention).
In view of that, I do not think it is reasonable to press the developers to enable an experiment; there are urgent developer tasks with clearer benefits. --Lambiam08:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea if this has been suggested before, but would it be possible to create a pull-down menu for edit summaries? With commonly-used things like 'fixed typo', 'fixed spelling', and a heap of others, with a 'if none of the above, insert your own summary here' option at the end? So many net users are familiar with pull-down menu options that I think this could be helpful. On the other side of that, of course, wouldf be the fact that it would make it all-too-easy for vandals to disguise themselves ... but how about talking this one through? It might be possible to make some kind of comparison-of-edit with edit-summary, to flag up those where the summary clearly doesn't fit the type of edit (e.g. added 450 characters with a 'summary' of typo-fix, or whatever). Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
If we use EF to do a test, then the specific page that appears as the 'warning' can be anything we want, including examples. But, that doesn't really answer your question; -for now, NO - we can't make a drop-down choice. But, if we get approval (following trial), and we get devs to add code to 'warn' - then devs *could* do it, yeah. I'm not convinced it'd be a "Good Thing" though, simply because it'd make people inclined to just choose a 'standard summary' instead of actually thinking. Chzz ► 06:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Evaluation of consensus on the proposal
I'd like to perform my own analysis of the consensus - sorting through comments and reasons, and then we could discuss it. That might take me a day or longer. I'll give you a shout (here). Chzz ► 09:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
An increasing problem is, that with a large enough sample, the chance of emphatic support reduces, leading to stagnation. I accept this is nowhere close to overwhelming support, but I think it is a pity to abandon the idea entirely. With fairly minor modifications to improve the clarity of the warning, it would appear to have a very high degree of support. Whether that can happen, or whether apathy will win the day, remains to be seen - and note, this is in no way a criticism of your evaluation, and I fully accept that "SoFixIt" applies - and I'm as guilty as anyone of apathy (whether you call it "meh", or WP:STICK, WP:FUCK) in stopping me bothering from pursuing issues such as this.
My own evaluation was that there was insufficient support to call it consensus. If pursued further, it should be in a modified form that avoids the objection that it makes editing more difficult. --Lambiam08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I do have one idea, but am unsure how to pursue it. I believe the edit filter could be used to display a bold, clear message with whatever we like (examples, or whatever) when users save articles with no edit summary, and not on minor edits. The notice given would look something like this one. It could additionally only warn new users (by whatever criteria we chose - 10 edits, 100 edits, 10 days, whatever), and it could, if desired, only warn for edits that add or remove more than 'x' characters.
One potential snag I can predict is, it might cause a double-message if the user preference to warn is enabled. I don't know; we'd need to test that.
It would also - in theory, at least - be possible to select a random list of specific new users, and only act upon them - as a test. Of course, a similar 'control group' could also be selected, and then their edits and if they stopped editing could be compared.
So I just went through the page you linked above. I still think that my analysis of the discussion was right, but I'm thinking of ways we might be able to use the edit filter to test it out. Perhaps if we did added a "Welcome to Wikipedia! Please consider using edit summaries, etc. etc." to every edit where , along with some other conditions, we might be able to get a trial going on that would be minimally annoying but still provide a base to test this out on. Maybe we could get Moonriddengirl and Philippe involved with this? This is part of their job after all, I believe :) NW(Talk)01:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're just trying to see how frequently it would come up, a filter can do that with ease. If you actually want to issue the warning, though, I can write up a filter for that too if it seems to be in agreement that we want to do it; but a very carefully crafted warning would be necessary. (And I'm really bad at that.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm just tossing ideas out, really. Can you write up a filter that doesn't warn but just logs? NW(Talk)04:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Certainly can. But do keep in mind that this will log everything in the filter log. Also, if it catches more than 5% of the edits, it will deactivate the filter automatically. Also also, would you want it to apply to everyone or just non-autoconfirmed editors? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I had a chat w/ prodego (talk·contribs) about this, too. Without getting into tech, we concluded that - it's possible to show any specific 'warning' for not leaving an edit sum on articles only, to x% of (new users* who contribute today) - where x% represents what we might deem appropriate for a trial. The specific users would receive the warning every time. That can be done - by e.g. selecting users where the timestamp of their user-creation is a specific second.
*'new user' being e.g. <100 contribs, or whatever we want
In other words - yep, it can be done. Can we therefore move towards a test, on a small percentage (a few hundred?) for a short time (week?) and analysis can show if this is a 'good thing'? If it is, we can get devs to make it a default setting, amendable via prefs. If it's not a 'good thing' I'll drop it. My gut-feeling is, that it'd not cause significant reduction in their editing, but would cause them to learn best-practice. Not easy to show that, but, I'll give it a shot. Chzz ► 06:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I would have to see the actual code before we begin, but from the previous discussion, I think there is support for a very small-scale test at least. We will need a control group as well. NW(Talk)15:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the necessary skill to write the filter itself. Prodego is the best bet, for that. But, we need to decide exactly what we want - what kind of percentage, what number? As for 'control' - that's easy enough, because 'all others' will not get the warning. Do we need to get consensus for a trial? How will we evaluate results? Chzz ► 18:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Good point on the control group. It might be easier if we set up a tracking filter though, just so we have an easy way to easily check whether IP edits really have changed significantly.
There needs to be a way to track how many people are stopped by the filter and don't try to edit again; I think that is absolutely essential and should be one of the main metrics of comparison. Anything more than a few percent for good edits is unacceptable. NW(Talk)03:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey!!!!!
I'm feeling a bit stalked here. Anyways, your being one of the good guys, I figure you have your reasons. BUT, I strongly disagree with this edit. Ed Poor is pushing his right wing agenda on these articles, by using that old canard that 1 or 2% or whatever who disagree with the science require more weight than the 99% who aren't denialists. You know that science isn't a voting democracy, but if it were, this would be considered a complete and utter landslide, on the order of what the Soviets used to do in their "elections." Oh wait, that probably wasn't the right metaphor. :) The acceptance of Evolution is overwhelming. And if you include only real scientists, not engineers or meteorologists or psychologists (sorry, but they aren't scientists), it's on the order of >99%.
Also, in the medical world, allopathic medicine is NEVER used by anyone. Same with conventional medicine. We say "medicine", and everything else is just woo. Anyways, since you're not one of the POV pushing crowd, I won't do my usual nastiness, but really, reverting to an Ed Poor edit is not going to last very long. I'm almost certain that one of a dozen editors is going to remove that edit pretty fast. I mean we've all been around long enough to know the full story of Mr. Poor. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions05:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
But your contribution history always gets me to the most interesting articles : Anyway, point by point:
While evolution should be agreed upon by everyone who has bothered reading about it, unfortunately dissertation committees have let through the odd fool or two. That makes it not a unanimity, per the dictionary definition. We could say "near-unanimous scientific agreement" while linking to scientific consensus or something like that, but I think it's more accurate this way.
I'm a newbie compared to you—Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ed Poor 2 came at a time when I had only very recently gotten heavily involved with Wikipedia. And he's mostly been inactive since then, right?
:( for the psychologists
Conventional medicine redirects to medicine, but yeah, it probably wasn't worth changing. I'm fine with your reversal on that.
I have heard an osteopathic physician refer to his MD-colleagues as allopaths before, actually. It was just a one-off remark in the middle of a longish conversation.
[2] Sounds fine; I shall have to read the article. The reason I had moved the references to inefficacious was because the homeopathy-debunking references don't show that homeopaths refer to real physicians as "allopaths".
I wasn't around for #1, but 2 was a hoot. I need to read those comments again, because I remember snark was quite hysterical. For some reason, I thought you were an old-timer...not in chronological age, but being around here. Of course, your ArbCom work is going to age you 20 years. Here's my point by point comment to your comments:
Good point. I believe Behe is one of 'em. Near-unanimous works too.
Ed Poor used to be famous amongst the liberal blogs. A couple of years ago, he would get mentioned quite a bit, but now he's pretty much gotten his 15 minutes of fame.
Sorry. Are you going to tell me you're a psychologist? :(
OK
Osteopathic physicians call everyone who didn't go to DO school allopaths. Until the point when they privileges or want to be included as an approved PHYSICIAN in an PPO or HMO. Cracks me up every time. My sister in law is a DO, and she insists on being called a doctor. Cracks me up.
I've worked with quite a few DOs, and I haven't really found them to be any "realer" or "less real" than MDs. There are some smart ones, and some intellectually challenged ones - but the same is true of MDs, in my experience. Of the ones I've worked with, very few (if any) incorporate osteopathic manipulation into their practices. They basically practice what might be called "allopathic" medicine. In fact, if not for the initials after their names, I probably couldn't differentiate them from MDs at all.
I was once riding the elevator with an osteopathic resident I worked with. A woman got on the elevator, scrutinized his ID, and asked: "DO? What does that mean? Is that different from MD?" Without any hesitation, and with a straight face, the resident responded: "Yes, ma'am. We're just like MDs, except we believe that the liver pumps the blood." The reaction was priceless. MastCellTalk23:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Administrator EdJohnston suggested I contact you for questions about arbitration. I recently filed an appeal for a modified ban. I only have two months left. If you care enough feel free to look through the discussion here. At first I accepted the consensus, but after discussing with Edjohnston I believe the AE was closed prematurely. As you know this is the redline for closing a discussion (quote by EdJohnston):
"clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" can overturn the original action. So this *appeal* is the step that needs consensus, the original sanction does not.
In the appeal, administrator EdJohnston argued I had no record of good behavior since December of 2010. Honestly, I found his comments confusing because another admin said I am grateful to Wikifan for contributing positively in the time since he was topic-banned". Two other editors, including an administrator of Hebrew Wikipedia disagreed with the view as well. I contacted EdJohnston asking for clarification about his comments, but he did not provide a response but rather proposed a three-way arbitration with a former mentor that IMO had nothing to do with his comments. I asked in the original AE but again no response. As closing admin I figured EdJohnston has more to defend in this case.
All I want it some answers here. I've devoted an incredible amount of time at editor's assitance boards, third opinions, RFC, etc...as encouraged by my former mentor. Assuming the most extreme interpretation, blunt statements such as "I see no evidence of good behavior" is in my personal opinion suspect.
am I being unreasonable here? Let me know what you think and if you care enough perhaps suggest how I should proceed? For emphasis, I have very little interest in over-turning this topic ban but I would like the appeal to be re-opened so other admin/adeditors (perhaps those who have never been involved in a prior AE or content dispute) can weigh in. Thank you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you being unreasonable here? Probably not. The fact of the matter is though, with only one administrator even coming close to saying the ban should be overturned (and even then not really), the default closure is "not overturned", no matter what the rationales of the other administrators are. I don't think it's really possible or wise to go back and reopen your appeal to the Arbitration Enforcement page. However, if you would like the Arbitration Committee to look over your original topic ban (Don't appeal the appeal, it won't go over well), the appropriate page to go to is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. NW(Talk)03:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
In your opinion would you see me pursuing an amendment worth the effort? I have about 2 or 3 months left, but I don't know what is going to change - behaviorally that is - between now and then. So I do not see the necessity of a total ban outside of punishment (which isn't the goal of AE I gather?)
Hypothetically, could my request lead to an extended topic ban or additional penalties/fines? I spent a solid 4 hours in my first appeal and that led to here. I don't know if I'm prepared to spend more than that in another appeal. Let me know what you think! Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It's theoretically possible but exceedingly unlikely that the Arbitration Committee would choose to extend your ban. At the same time, I would be surprised if they acted on your appeal. Arbitrators have traditionally given wide leeway to actions taken under the banner of Arbitration Enforcement, even if they themselves would not have made the sanction in question. If I were in your shoes, I think I would just let the matter be and edit something totally unrelated for the time being. NW(Talk)23:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Block of Nableezy
Lest confusion lead to anything unfortunate, you might want to make clear whether this block is an arbitration enforcement action. The text of you message implies it is but the ARBPIA log and indefinite duration suggest otherwise. CIreland (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You'd better have damn good reasons you aren't stating, because you haven't given any reasons at all on Wikipedia as far as I can see. Zerotalk23:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Second that, if you are not willing to air your concerns in public, 'outing' and all that, then I would suggest that you take to one of the mailing lists created for just such matters, and allow nableezy full access to the discussion within that forum. Currently this looks quite odd. un☯mi23:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Zero, if you're uninvolved with Arab-Israeli articles, email me and I'll explain. Unomi, what mailing lists exist for this kind of discussion? I am honestly unaware of them. NW(Talk)00:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Since when are only uninvolved persons entitled to know the reason for a block? Actually everyone is entitled to know (perhaps with some personal details elided). You should announce the reason for your block even if you censor the names of involved persons. Zerotalk00:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Zero here. It is astonishing that you appear to be defending a bunch of sockpuppeteers responsible for persistent dishonest and disruptive editing over many years, yet a careful, accurate and honest editor gets an indefinite block with absolutely no valid reason at all? And with the comment "disruption" in the block log? How bizarre can you get? --NSH001 (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm waiting for an explanation too. First Nableezy is topic-banned for months for making 3 reverts over the course of one week. Then, he's indefinitely banned for some unspecified reason? What on earth is going on here? Tiamuttalk06:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Me, too. Unlike others who may be uninvolved in I/P articles, I am involved, and find this block pretty astonishing. I ask as one who is often on the opposite side of many disputes with Nableezy. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Nableezy's post did not even suggest that some Wikipedia user could be identified by means of the information he gave. Actually it is your action that alerted all and sundry that such an identification is possible. It must have been obvious to the unnamed user that by prompting you to take this action his supposedly secret identity was going to be exposed to anyone who is watching and knows how to use Google. He is not a fool. You should have realised this and you also should have realised that said user is a sworn enemy of Nableezy. He suckered you and you fell for it. Zerotalk00:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
NW, thank you for the expanded explanation of the reasons for Nableezy's block. I have written some points on his talk page for your consideration. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: Tillman
I would like to bring to your attention this edit by User:Tillman which was made at 22:25, 1 June 2011. The user appears to have started up an edit war two weeks after taking your recommended break. It should also be noted that Tillman's account has been somewhat inactive except for making repeated disputed edits to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy and climate denial topics for many months now. This gives the impression that Tillman is a SPA. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Tillman's immediate return to the climate change topic a day after his voluntary two week break looks increasingly like the actions of an SPA that is only concerned with pushing a POV:
03:56, 2 June 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy (→2010 climate: removed it)[3]
03:55, 2 June 2011 (diff | hist) Climatic Research Unit email controversy (Remove irrelevant 2010 temp reference, see talk)[4]
03:46, 2 June 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy (→Why a quotebox from a PR man?: new section)[5]
22:25, 1 June 2011 (diff | hist) Climatic Research Unit email controversy (→Timeline of the initial incident: restore Jones quote, see "Sentence removed" at talk)[6]
20:22, 1 June 2011 (diff | hist) Heaven and Earth (book) (→Media reactions: wikilink, dl sltly misleading description of Ward, a PR man)[7]
In analyzing Tillman's edits, we see the following continuing problems (numbers correspond with above):
Tillman claims he removed material based on a discussion on talk.[8] However, as Tillman is well aware, the thread was started by Arthur Rubin at 14:37, 15 May 2011, approximately one hour before you asked editors to take a break from this article, meaning there was little to no discussion on this topic. There was only one reply, by Short Brigade Harvester Boris, who then volunteered to take a break as well. Tillman simply returned to the article after the break, removed the material in question,[9] and then claimed on the talk page that he "removed the 2010 temp statement as irrelevant, per the discussion above" when in fact, there was no little to no discussion at all due to the break. This is disingenuous at worst, and presumptuous at best.
See above.
Tillman posts a talk page comment questioning the existence of a quote, using a fallacious argument from authority and wikilawyering over policy.[10] It is not clear how one is supposed to respond to Tillman, as he has not addressed how and why the quote is even used, but rather what he personally thinks of the person making the quote (which as the source shows, is a ridiculous assumption).
Tillman restores a poorly sourced quote by a BLP, sourced to Spalding Guardian & Lincolnshire Free Press, a non-notable newspaper. Both papers are published once a week; Spalding Guardian has a distribution of 15,500 copies and Lincolnshire Free Press has a distribution of 18,700 copies. Neither are what we consider high-quality sources used to cite BLP's or climate science. Further the quote he added back in is trivial, and was intended to cast doubt on the existence of death threats, which have been confirmed by every major media outlet.
Tillman has removed a description of Bob Ward from Heaven and Earth (book) calling Ward a "science journalist and author".[11] This is an important part of attribution for the reader, since a general reader isn't going to know who Bob Ward is. Tillman claims this wording is "sltly misleading description of Ward, a PR man". The source cited calls Ward a "policy and communications director" at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment a policy research organization,[12] not a public relations firm. Bob Ward's bio at the Grantham Research Institute website says "he has also worked as a freelance science writer and journalist"[13] and goes on to list 38 articles he has published as a science journalist and author, and only 3 policy and research articles. So, based on his actual published work, the original wording was correct.
Please also note, Tillman has been mostly inactive for the last two weeks. Since he volunteered to take a break from the topic, he has made only ~18 edits, consisting of 2 edits to another user's talk page, 5 edits to his own talk page, 3 edits to article talk pages, and 8 edits to articles. Of Tillman's 8 sole contributions to articles in the last two weeks, 4 were reverts and 4 were copyedits. During this time, Tillman has not created any articles nor has he made any major contributions, nor has he participated in any community processes. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with some (not all) of what you wrote, I'm not sure if I could justify taking any sort of administrative action based on it. Perhaps you could talk this over with one of the regular AE admins (EdJohnston, HJ Mitchell for example) and see if they have any thoughts on the matter? Sorry I'm not more helpful right now. NW(Talk)00:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If User:Tony Sidaway is around, it is always good to get his opinion on any WP:ARBCC question. The turmoil at Climatic Research Unit email controversy looks to be enough to justify some kind of admin warning to somebody. ARBCC gives a lot of power to admins if they can ever figure out what is reasonable to do. Perhaps declare that an RfC is needed. Anybody want to propose a question for an RfC to answer? EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Please note that Viriditas made no effort to contact me regarding these charges.
His "tag-team" charge is common for him, and silly. A borderline WP:NPA? His SPA accusation is even sillier, as a glance at my user page will reveal. And I've been "mostly inactive" because I was moving, and busy at work -- which I'd mentioned to Viriditas.
I'm sorry to see Viriditas resuming his Battlefield mentality -- about which he has been repeatedly admonished.
Tillman, I think we can resolve this. All you have to do is stop engaging in civil POV pushing and we'll be fine. Can you do that? Please read that page carefully, as you appear to be following it as a script instead of avoiding this type of behavior. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, after my two week break I feel so much better that nothing in the world is going to get me involved in this again right now. While I think that V may be right with respect to the one diff he provides above (there may be undue weight added by Pete's edit although I'm not 100% sure without looking at it carefully), what is beyond doubt is that Pete is right with respect to V's consistent and wildly inappropriate treatment of any editor he thinks is a 'denier'. Quite simply, Viriditas should not be at that page, period. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism (serious)
Hi there NUCLEAR, VASCO here, longtime no "see", hope all's fine with you
You may remember User:Pararubbas from last year, 60 socks and counting (70 anyday now, if not already). Well, this new user JimHellie, is strikingly similar in several aspects (which i comment in the Satori message), although completely different in others, maybe to elude the "investigators"? He replied shabbily to one of my messages to him and, after my reply, which consisted of mainly me asking if he was Pararubbas, stopped all conversation, but has continued undoing what i undid of him (which i will until he replies).
Hi Vasco, long time no speak. I'd prefer to wait for the results of the sockpuppet investigation before taking any action, if that's all right with you? I have formatted the case up a bit. NW(Talk)12:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice work man. The user/admin covering the situation at the report says he's having a hard time seeing the connection, and no checkuser is possible here. See my latest input there to see why i'm always sure it's Pararubbas. If no block is possible, hey no problem, he's only going to open another account.
User:Zombie433 has been the subject of several WP:FOOTY discussions, and he also was banned eventually. How did he work that out? No new accounts, but he has a vast array of anon IPs, so he continues his "work", as undoubtedly will Pararubbas. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
He sent me another message, asking why am i undoing him, but did not answer the question (are you User:Pararubbas?), which is proof enough he IS! I don't need any more leads, but i ceased caring now, block him if you want, don't block if you don't want, i now with whom we are dealing.
Furthermore, why am i being such an idiot? The block (if it does happen) gets us nothing, he'll just open the 80th account, then the 90th and so on, so on... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like HelloAnnyong blocked him. Have you ever managed to get through to Pararubbas and have an actual conversation with him? NW(Talk)23:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Other than the last stuff with JimHellie, no, neither has anyone. He has now sent me a message saying he is not Pararubbas, but if Annyong blocked him, turns out he IS. Still, as i have mentioned earlier, the new Pararubbas has started adding references and links (instead of REMOVING them), but it's quite annoying that this person does not want to function in the "spirit of the community". Ah, and in one of the last stuff i reverted him, he "came back" as anon and re-reverted, so much for the cooperation (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Portuguese_football_transfers_summer_2011).
Could you do me a big but bold (wikiwise) favour? Could you protect List of Portuguese football transfers summer 2011 for a couple of months? From what i have seen, almost always Pararubbas is contributing there and, if the page was protected, he would not be able to operate anon. Thus, if a new account would edit there, we would be pretty pretty sure it was him.
I'd actually prefer to keep that article open to see if he edits it with an IP address—I want to see if it will be possible to pin down an IP range. I know I tried that last year, but maybe it has changed since then. NW(Talk)23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks! I also forgot to say why did i want that protection to be that long: it's because the next two, two 1/2 months, will be the most busy in what football transfers are concerned, in Portugal and many many countries in the world. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Request for amendment of the Ed Poor case
Lordy, I don't even know who to ask... so I certainly can't blame Ed by much for putting his response to me in the wrong place. The whole business is a bureaucrat's wet dream! However, I don't actually want his edit in my section. Could you move it to his, please, Nukular? Bishonen | talk13:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC).
Huh.. ? No, they didn't. It's still in my section, the one named "Request by Bishonen". It should be in Ed's section, the one named "Statement user:Ed Poor". Don't let the "Comment by Andries to request by user:Bishonen" confuse you; that one is correctly placed and not part of the problemn. Er.. would you like me to do the moving myself.. ? (My computer is just closing down for the night, though.) Bishonen | talk00:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC).
NW, you previously weighed in on this discussion on the side of requiring explicit verifiability for episode production codes. After that discussion petered out in what I assumed was consensus against edokter(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), I made an effort to temper him by leaving the unverified information in place, but with a {{citation needed}} tag. It's been over two years since then, and that tag has remained until today when edokter has resumed in edit warring to remove it. The television network's webpage for the episode says "Season 1 - Episode 101", and edokter's most recent edit summary argues, "'Episode number 101' *on* the homepage [...] is as close as we're going to get to a production code." I'm agast at this inattention to detail; "as close as we're going to get" still means misrepresenting the facts.
A thought first: Battlestar Galactica is out on DVD, no? Don't DVDs usually contain production codes? But assuming you can't find something explicitly labeled "Production Code" on the DVD, I think because it has been this long, I think you would be well justified in removing the production codes entirely. They are old, but I think the talk page and WikiProject discussions are at least fairly solidly against Edokter. Per WP:BURDEN, it is his responsibility to provide an adequate citation that is acceptable to the entire community. Any further edit warring is a bridge we can cross when we get to it. NW(Talk)23:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I used the Battlestar Galactica DVDs already, and there're no production codes there. I'll remove the code and leave a comment about needing reliable sources and the prohibition of original research, and will refer to WP:BURDEN in my edit summary. Would you be willing to stand with and/or back me up when (not if) edokter again adds the information? — Fourthords |=/\= | 02:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
edokter's sourceIt only took ten minutes for edokter to revert and tell me "Source is webpage ***READ***". For ease, the source for the production code to which he's referring is in the image I've included here. — Fourthords |=/\= | 21:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
First thank you for not letting me know about this conversation. Second, my main gripe whey the code is only removed from this epiosde. All the other are uncontested, and I am simply trying to maintain some consistency. So they are episode numbers and a specific source for "production" cannot be found. If you really want them gone, fine, but then you are also responsible from removing them from all episodes. So either follow up on your edit, or leave the code alone. Thank you. — Edokter (talk) — 21:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I you think that's my best avenue to avoid further conflict with this administrator, I'll do that sometime soon. Thanks for your presence and assistance. — Fourthords |=/\= | 02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Edokter, I linked to this conversation in this edit summary. Secondly, there's no reason to require all of a subject's articles be corrected for a single one to be; editors frequently work on any given item from a set without interest in the others. I will make the edits at NuclearWarfare's suggestion, but not because I understand your rationale behind their requirement. — Fourthords |=/\= | 02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Editor Viriditas appears to be edit-warring here: see this diff, which also appears to be a 1RR violation.
Viriditas is also (again) introducing contentious material without seeking consensus, see (for example) this diff. N ote that the page is prominently posted "Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" (top of Talk page).
This was his pattern of behavior before you asked him to take some time off. He was repeatedly asked to seek consensus, and did not change his behavior. See, for example, here, here, and here.
In my view, this is unacceptable behavior, and I hope you will review the situation and act as you see fit. Viriditas appears to be a "loose cannon" on this page -- though he makes valuable contribs elsewhere. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This is completely and totally false. I have made one revert in the last 24 hours.[14] For the second day in a row, Tillman has violated the 1RR restriction, making a total of three reverts in the last 24 hours.[15][16][17] Tillman does not understand the concept of a revert, even though it has been explained to him many times now. I am filing a request for enforcement on AN/I immediately. I am sick and tired of the false allegations. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I think V. is confused re 1RR. Policy re this situation is as follows: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Thus I don't think I've violated 1RR, and I pointed this out to Viriditas here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not confused at all. As it was explained to you, you reverted three times, two of which were consecutive, resulting in 2RR. In fact, the first revert you made,[18] was identical to the previous revert you made[19] (and self-reverted).[20] There's no ambiguity here. You undid the edits of Tarc[21] (and previously myself).[22] Then for your second round of reverts, you reverted all the edits I made to the lead section the media reception section.[23] That's two unambiguous blanket reverts of every word I wrote and all the changes I made. The third revert was consecutive, so it doesn't count as a separate revert. Viriditas (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Ed offered to block us both. Would you like that instead? BTW, there is an open request on the article talk page asking you to explain why you reverted my edits. Could you please answer it? I've asked you to explain why you've restored the two editorials to the media reaction section twice now, and I've received no reply, except that you keep adding it back into the article. Please take a moment out of your busy night of reverting, and answer the questions on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't had the chance to look this over (been busy), but I am I correct in saying that this was handled on ANI? NW(Talk)22:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I haven't filed anything there, but I'm thinking about it, perhaps a WP:CIVILITY complaint? But I hate doing that stuff. Ed Johnson suggested trying a RfC here, and maybe that would be better?
You might be interested in the upshot of Viriditas's 1RR complaint, which I just discovered and posted at AN/I: my post at Tillman (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2011. Quite a surprise!
NW, I am very sorry to report that Tillman has now violated the 1RR for the third day in a row.[24] Could you please tell me where I can go to get these probation sanctions enforced? If nobody is going to enforce them, we might as well take the 1RR template off the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get a chance to look at this earlier. For the future: WP:AE would have been a better place to go to. NW(Talk)01:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Make prompting for a missing edit summary the default
This "user" undid me at Rui Miguel Rodrigues after i undid JimHellie09, of course it's Pararubbas (and sorry for my very uncivil summary there, i am ready to be blocked if you see fit...what on earth is wrong with this man?!?)!
Not that it means anything if you decide to take actions against me (i will duly oblige if so), but i left a polite (but to the point) message in the new talkpage (please see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Alexgreene87). If he continues to deny the evidence, we should not cut slack. If he acknowledges and apologizes, then i think the ban could be lifted.
Newsflash! He has replied and has confessed he is Pararubbas, and apologized (three years later!!) for his manners. For what's worth, i will stop being on his case if i don't see anymore wrongdoings. Maybe the ban could be lifted, cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Huzzah! I see that Satori Son has stolen the words from my mouth, so I'll let him handle it, though I will watchlist the relevant userpages. NW(Talk)22:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Alexgreene87), i see no movement whatsoever in the "Appealing a block" page from him, even though i have left him thorough instructions on how to proceed, lest he felt "lost".
At the risk of WP:BEANS, there is no real method of removing Twinkle now since it can be enabled as a gadget and the blacklist was removed in the recent rewrite. T. Canens (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
As we have started the 24 hour clock on the Racepacket case, I would appreciate a response regarding my inquiry at the talk page. I am asking you based on your penning and updating the implemenation notes. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
[26]. Took some time it did—I had to write many of those definitions down by hand (with pen and paper; who ever heard of such a thing!). NW(Talk)19:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I am now very impressed that you have remained a Wikipedia editor for so long. In contrast to some of the stuff I have seen you deal with, this is a reasonably civil discussion with all parties at least attempting to cite reliable sources. And it is already somewhat frustrating. NW(Talk)20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Mostly a matter of knowing when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em. :) There's one particular editor who I think pioneered the now-dominant approach of cherry-picking reliable sources at Talk:Abortion to serve an ideological viewpoint. But I'm afraid to mention his name, both because of WP:NPA and because if I say it three times, he might appear. :P Anyhow, it is frustrating, because policy doesn't have much to say about how to choose from a surfeit of technically "reliable" sources. Common sense should suffice, but sense isn't common is on Wikipedia. MastCellTalk21:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of cherry picking sources: [27]. It's only slightly amusing to compare the references to the main article text, but such is life. NW(Talk)01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Abortion
There is no consensus for your edits in the abortion article. As you will see if you look at the first FAQ listed at the top of the Abortion article, there has been consistent consensus (despite many attempts to persuade for a change) for the version that you deleted. Please go back and restore the original opening paragraph and use the talk page to build consensus for any changes that you wish to make. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with JJL's comment on the talk page. I would prefer to centralize discussion there, if you don't mind. NW(Talk)17:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikimail
Hi there NUKE, VASCO "here",
could you please help me out? I have been receiving a lot of mail in my e-address whenever someone sends me a message here. Dunno what have i done to trigger that. In addition, i received another mail regarding something about WIKIMEDIA elections (if i'm not mistaken, can't remember it well, and now i erased that "briefing"), and a request if i wanted to stop receiving mail, which i promptly filled in. After a filled that, the messages continue to arrive at my e-mail (maybe my "subscription" has not yet been accepted?).
What's a bit odd is that i think (not 100% sure, but almost) i started receiving those messages about my wiki-mail before i received the Wikimedia one. Can you help me out, or has my message left you "clutching at straws"? :) :) Sorry if i was not clear enough.
There was a software update a couple weeks back that triggered this for everyone. Go to Special:Preferences, scroll down to "E-mail options" and untick the boxes that say "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed" and "E-mail me also for minor edits of pages". Annoying, I know; I was very confused for a while too. NW(Talk)20:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to give a warning, as I don't know football enough to wonder if this is an editor who might have heard a rumor and thought that was good enough to change the WP article. It's quite a lot of good faith being assumed; if you want me to block, I will. NW(Talk)01:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
He even changed the PERSONDATA, and check the birthyear, from 1982 to 1996, i guess it's a kid trying to "become" a pro footballer :) All in all, let's wait a few more days to see what the next edit will look like. Can a user be put in a watchlist? If it's possible, i'd like to do it with this chap. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Didn't look at it that closely. A user's contributions can't be watchlisted, so I just blocked him indefinitely. NW(Talk)02:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I just kind of realized this week what a ridiculous number of sources I have access to. If you need a source at any time, just feel free to ask and I'll do my best to get it for you. NW(Talk)04:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Liam Hearn
Hi, Liam Hearn's page was deleted for non-notable a couple of years ago. Is it ok to restart it since he has now represented England C at international level and signed for Grimsby Town SourceChaosEmerald 15:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
She'll likely be dead in 50 years. My intention was to keep it up for the duration of her lifetime, without someone summarily overturning it two years from now because they found it on a list of indefinite protections or something. NW(Talk)20:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Despot behavior from Elder Editors
Hi, NW. I've read your "fragmented conversations hurt my brain" lines and, excuse if I'm failing with that condition, since you primarily wrote to me. Anyway, thanks for your advises about science and pseudoscience.
What brings me here, to your talk page, besides that you have a nice reputation, let's say an excellent one among elder editors, is something that happens in some wiki articles: there are some editors who make a despotic and tyrannical rule over some articles, they almost leave no ground to other editors's contributions (even if those are as good as elder editors contributions, well based, peer reviewed, without bias or POV issues) simply because they strongly believe in something without leaving any chance to other leads.
I've been in a discussion with some of them for months, specially in AIDS Denialism page where I presented some new facts (some of them with excellent references, others not so good, I admit that) but they, steadily, kept on undemining mine and other contributors addings giving always POV criteria, without providing tangible reasons (moreover because those elder editors also make some POV mistakes, but they accept that). Let me give you some examples:
About references, well, I've provided a peer reviewed publication from MD Etienne de Harven. Wasn't the best journal: the jpands, but acceptable. They, like grand inquisitors, kept on erasing it. But, how funny, they allow lines from Nattrass or the Skeptical Inquirer. Those are their criteria.
Another one, even worst. Jean Luc Montagnier (I think he needs no introduction) wrote some years ago a book explaining his cofactorial hypothesis about HIV AIDS [1] and even in recent days he made statements about cofactors in the Role of AIDS (free available in the web, look for that if you like) but they simply erased or ignored and reverted that, they even claimed that "he knows nothing about that subject and he likes homeopathy". But they accept references, for example, from Seth Kalichman, who is not a virologist, biologist, biochemist or anything related to the subject. He is a sociologist. What do you think about this?? By free will they use the word "consensus" instead of trying to achieve one.
These are some of the little things I wanted to talk. I don't know, you seemed reliable to me and there are good references about you. And, by coincidence, you've just wrote to my page. I've never, in any moment, wrote "homeopathy cures AIDS", but simply (for example) "Jean Luc Montagnier, in several interviews and many works, exposed his cofactorial theory about AIDS". ¿Is this so bad?
Sorry for bothering you with things like this. You probably have more important things to do instead of solving this kind of issues. But your reputation of neutrality and good arbitration was enough for me. What do you think about this?? Wikipedia is the worldwideweb's free encyclopedia, but some people think that they are the only ones able to "consense" about articles. Thanks for your time. Milikguay (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you're going about it the wrong way. It appears to me that you think that AIDS denialism is biased. That's fine, but the way you're trying to go about changing that is wrong. You need to provide reliable review sources that overview the entire topic, and base sections off of them. More simply, instead of trying insert sentences, you need to draft sections with the highest quality overview sources you can find.
Kalichman is actually a far better source for this topic than Montagnier. Montagnier may be a Nobel laureate in medicine/physiology, but AIDS denialism is fundamentally a sociological topic. The field of sociology is practically designed to study fringe views in society and medicine. And a full professor of sociology at a well-respected state university is the perfect source for that. NW(Talk)17:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for the bother. What is the typical etiquette for cleaning up indents on talk pages? Just do it in good faith or ask individual editors to cleanup after themselves ? Thanks. Ps. I noticed the good work. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
If the error is obvious, you can feel free to clean it up yourself. If you're ever not sure on who a comment was addressed to, just leave it where it is and ask the poster to clarify. NW(Talk)22:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Authorships and cynicism
Thanks for doing the legwork at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijendra K. Singh. I had the sense that the h-index cited by Xxanthippe (talk·contribs) was grossly inflated by including publications from other authors, but I couldn't work out how to calculate it more accurately. (I do wish people would be more circumspect about the limitations of the statistical measures they throw around on Wikipedia, but that's a more general meta-gripe). Using the same tool, my own h-index was ludicrously high, which (I realized) was not because of a sudden increase in the citation of my work, but because the online tool was including work by people with names similar to mine.
Regarding your question about authorship here: the most meaningful authorship positions are generally first and last. The first author obviously has primary responsibility for the work and has usually drafted the manuscript. The last author is the "senior" author - often they've provided the funding, resources, and intellectual direction behind the research. When it comes promotion time, first and last authorships are generally highly valued, "middle" authorships much less so. In fact, for certain grants for independent research, the grant application may be rejected if the PI doesn't have enough "senior" (last) authorships, because the reviewers see this as evidence that they're not independent or established enough to receive a major grant like an R01. It's effed up to have a grant rejected because of "too many first authorships and not enough last authorships", but that's how things work, at least in the corner of U.S. biomedical research with which I'm familiar.
About the abortion kerfuffle, it's really hard for me not to be cynical. There's this strong correlation between an issue's political relevance to the pro-life movement and the number of editors pushing it on Wikipedia. In 2008, there were a bunch of state laws in the U.S. which would have mandated that physicians tell women seeking an abortion that the procedure would harm their mental health. Coincidentally, there was a major campaign on Wikipedia, headed by single-purpose agenda accounts, to make sure that our articles on abortion and mental health conveyed this (false) information. Strangely, after the 2008 election cycle, this effort died down.
At present, there's an effort in some U.S. states to legally mandate that physicians tell women seeking an abortion that life begins at conception (e.g. [28]). And suddenly, concurrently, the issue (which has been dormant for years) is extremely active on Wikipedia, with agenda-driven accounts appearing to demand that it's of the utmost importance to stress that abortion "kills" a living fetus. I suppose these could be coincidences, rather than an effort to get Wikipedia to serve a partisan political agenda, but I'm too cynical to really believe that. MastCellTalk16:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Was the PI-as-last-author convention the case even in 1985? Because I was under the impression that Dr. Singh was a grad student at the time at UBC and hence unable to serve as a PI. Could be wrong about that I suppose
I used to not really get WP:RANDY before Climate change (and now this). I had always thought that people who cited it were simply academics who were used to always getting their way in labs and in teaching, and now that they had to show up on Wikipedia and actually provide sources that everyone could understand, they were SOL. I never really understood how much time an editor can waste on a single topic without providing even three meaningful sources. Makes me think how many other admins think the same way. There are a fair number of good administrators, sure, but there are also plenty more like me who know nothing substantial about anything. NW(Talk)14:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Authorship ordering is one of the most Byzantine aspects of academics. I've sometimes spent more time hashing out the authorship order than actually writing a manuscript. There aren't really any hard-and-fast rules, except that the first and last positions are typically the most "valued". The last author isn't always the lab or grant PI; sometimes, if two people contribute more or less equally, they might split the first and last authorships (although these days I've noticed a rise in "co-first-authorships" for such situations, to maximize the c.v. value of the publication). The weight attached to these things is one of the more idiotic aspects of academia, but such is life. I would say that if Singh is the final author, then he contributed substantially to the paper, since that's usually the way of the world.
As far as WP:RANDY, I think it's really useful to have admins with experience in the trenches, because I don't think one really grasps the frustration of dealing with these things until you've been involved in these sorts of disputes as an editor. The power of a single obstructionist to completely derail Wikipedia's editing processes has to be experienced first-hand to be believed. One of the major improvements in Wikipedia over the past few years is that we've moved away from an ArbCom full of faceless bureaucrats to one which includes people with in-the-trenches editing experience, though still not as much as I would like.
Specialized knowledge just isn't that important on Wikipedia. Much more important is an understanding of what makes a good source (and access to good sources), although these sometimes do go hand-in-hand with specialized knowledge. You do a good job as an editor and admin - and I think you have more specialized knowledge than you realize, and more than most Wikipedians - so don't be too hard on yourself about that. MastCellTalk17:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Seen to believe indeed. Who would have thought that one would use anything other than the best dictionaries, glossaries and introductory paragraphs of textbooks to define something that has a contentious meaning in reality. And yet, what are the odds that anything at all would be done if I reported this to someone uninvolved? I spoke to someone in the IRC admins channel a few days ago to get a gut-check, and their response was roughly "Yeah, I think the sources in the current version basically back up "death". Or the imply it at the least, so it doesn't matter if nearly all of them use a slightly different wording." They had plenty of experience looking at disputes, but their advice was basically limited to "Talk with the other editors and that IP, 67... some more. You will reach a consensus eventually." NW(Talk)13:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Fixed NW (Talk) 16:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
