Jump to content

User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10


Topic ban

I would like to appeal the topic ban you have issued. I was careful not to make more than 1 revert, but I forgot to write on the talkpage. It was an honest mistake. The restrictions are still new, and I am not used to them. That said, I did breach the terms of the editing restrictions and I take responsibility for my action. I can understand being blocked for something like this, but a 6 month topic ban for forgetting to write on the talkpage seems overly harsh, especially considering the restrictions would end at the end of June. I ask you to reconsider. Since this is the first time I am in breach, would you consider amending the penalty? In such situations I have seen users get issued with a block, but never a 6 month topic ban. I will be much more careful in the future and if you were to amending your decision, as a sign of good faith I will abide by 0R for the duration of the sanctions imposed by Stifle. Regards, Athenean (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your appeal does seem sincere, and I will take it into consideration while I decide. Thank you for understanding why I imposed the restriction, and for being civil while I consider options for commuting it. I will let you know when I make my decision. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If I may just interject, six months does seem a bit on the draconian side. Athenean is normally one of the more reasonable editors in this field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Six months seem reasonable enough. I agree with both bans, but if Athenean's ban is eventually reduced(to four months maybe?) kedadi's should also be reduced similarly as he is too one of the reasonable editors.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the ban. Maybe four months are OK! Stupidus Maximus (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Ban appeal

Hi there Wordsmith, how is it going?

I would like to appeal to my ban for Balkan-related articles. I am a recent changes patroller on Kosovo and Albania-related articles and usually fight vandalism on those areas (Kosovo-related articles tend to have much more biased edits because of the political status of Kosovo). That revision that I've reverted, was actually an obvious vandalism which can also be seen in the revision history of that article.

To be honest, I am taking very seriously the sanctions on which I am placed. Reverts like that on the Štrpce article, shouldn't be a problem as Stifle has stated on WP:ARBMAC.

Cheers. kedadial 23:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan
Last: 03/21/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Would it be a violation of my topic ban if I participated in the following SPI discussion [1] (it concerns an editor who is from the Balkans)? I am the initiator of the SPI and I have some potentially crucial WP:DUCK evidence to present. Btw, if you were to take a look at the SPI itself, I would be much obliged. Best, Athenean (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes? No? Athenean (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it would not be a violation of the ban. The ban that I enacted applies only to editing articles, not discussions or other parts of Wikipedia. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the clarification. Athenean (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie Baxter

Hi there. You recently deleted the Ronnie Baxter article under CSD:G12, presumably from here. However given the nature of that page and how it is written, I suspect that it was probably copied from the WP article rather than the other way round. Please advise how we can get this restored. Thanks. wjematherbigissue 14:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like that may be the case, since there are stylistic choices that are similar to Wikipedia articles. However, as the deleted article does not cite sources, there is no way to know for sure. A good place to start would be asking the webmaster who wrote that bio. If he says he got it from Wikipedia, then I can restore it and notify him about copyright infringement. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Further to this deletion, I recall creating many darts players articles in the relative early days of Wiki around 2005 - but not sure if Baxter's article was one. If you send us a link to the last edit before the deletion, I might be able to put sources in to satisfy that this is not a copyright infrigement. I could also look at a re-write if you think that might be better. I'm not sure how to do this so need some guidance Seedybob2 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC) (I have also used Seedybob when I forgot my password!)

"testicular fortitude"

Can't say that mate its sexist. Otherwise suggest you ignore the side comments and continue to do whatever you judge right without worrying. And you are not "junior", you are amongst equals. --BozMo talk 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't intended to be sexist, just a phrase I remember hearing long ago that stuck with me. I'm sure there are female admins that display the same (ovarial fortitude, perhaps?). Also, in terms of experience I have less than most other admins. I do know that we don't have any sort of hierarchy, of course. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, welcome to the cabal... ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar.2C_NuclearWarfare.2C_The_Wordsmith.2C_Polargeo

I have noted in the above enforcement request that the admin-only results section is for results, not for threaded discussion. If you wish to enage in threaded discussion, you are directed to do so where the plebians are able to respond to you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010


Time to take a case?

Hi Wordsmith. Do you have time to take a case for the MedCom? Candidates with pending nominations are by convention allowed to take one case as a "trial run" for the time they could potentially spend formally mediating for real. In your case I'd like you to take a case not because you have to prove your worth but because we're a little backlogged at the moment (in terms of available mediators, not caseload). :-) Would you be able to take one on? It's a quite informal and low-key case; nothing too intense, I shouldn't think. AGK 22:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis 2, yes? If so, i'll take it. Is there any silly song-and-dance I need to do before commenting there? The WordsmithCommunicate 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the case I'm referring to, yeah. There used to be some paperwork we had the parties fill out in order to ensure they agreed to have a non-Committee member take the case. I don't think we'll bother with it here, especially what with the low-key, amicable, and informal nature of the case. I guess that she's all yours. Best, AGK 00:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

My 2-week topic ban expires today, am I correct? Athenean (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your ban is now expired. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

The Register used in the following articles as a source.

  • Phorm Seventeen Times in one article

Steve McIntyre Used in the following articles as sources, please note he also passes wp:sps

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. also passes wp:sps. I honestly do not see how any of these sources can be considered as breaking my previous sanction. All are fully reliable. All were attributed, i request you lift this new sanction or it will now be impossible for me to work on new content. For instance over the last few weeks i have created the following articles, all of which deal with climate change one way or another. Mike Hulme Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future Susan M. Gaines Carbon Dreams Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History How am i meant to create articles or work on content if i have to ask permission to use a ref every time? mark nutley (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will consider your appeal. If you have any admins or established editors willing to vouch for you, send them over here. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

2/0

Hi. Are you discounting 2/0's opinion on GSCC due to your belief he is no longer an "uninvolved" admin? "Yes" or "No," will do. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Short answer? No. Longer answer: I do consider him involved, but I still looked at and analyzed each and every opinion given in that enforcement request, even from the non-admins and involved admins. Where a handful of editors are allowed to filibuster or make irrelevant points, nothing will ever achieve consensus, so I took BOLD and decisive action, and did what I felt was the right thing. There wasn't consensus against a ban, either. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What has led you to believe 2/0 "edits the topic area?" If it turns out that you are mistaken, what about your behavior will you change in the future to prevent you from making errors of fact? If it turns out you are not mistaken, you will provide me with a 2010 diff of 2over0 "editing" in the topic area (as opposed to "adminstratoring"), on request, correct? I am concerned that you are making administative action based on off-wiki communication that is innacurate and misleading. Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

You'll have seen [2] I imagine. I request you give NW permission to release the other half (your half) of the IRC log William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hereby release my half of the logs under CC-BY-SA. NW has my fill permission to post them. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


I came by to ask you if you logged that outcome (and Marknutley's) ? I can't find it in the log. I have to say that on numbers WMC's probably got a point about WMC's ban from that article. It was the right outcome, to be sure, but the consensus apparently isn't there. I think another stern warning is about all that one could hope for. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I logged both actions in the same edit, that edit is here. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, when you logged the sanction on the Singer article, you didn't specify whether it applied also to the article talk page or not. Believe me, if that is the case then it needs to be stated. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If this is not explicitly mentioned, then this it is not included for all intents and purposes. Cenarium (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed the Talk page and found that WMC's edits to it weren't all that problematic, so the ban does not extend to the article talk page. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the tough call.

The Admin's Barnstar
For acting as a role model for other administrators by making important Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP a priority on Fred Singer. FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll second this. Notice that SV was forced to expand the article in her userspace because of the disruption. Look at what she was able to accomplish with it once the disruptive influence was removed. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

I hope you agree that in retrospect, your closure of the RFE against me did not reflect consensus. You will have seen various admins agreeing that is so, and even Lar, abvove. I think the best thing is for you to admit this and withdraw your closure, in order to spare us all yet more dramah.

I hope you will allow me to epxress my disappointment at the way you have "closed and run". You knew that close would be controversial, yet you did not stay around to answer questions. This is regrattable.

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I would also note that I do not see the consensus, which I feel is required in a matter such as this. I would appreciate if you could comment on how you saw consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my close did not have consensus by vote tally, but consensus is not a vote. When I looked at the strength of arguments and weighed them carefully, I decided that the closure was the right thing to do. I could have also made the same close under BLP Special Enforcement, if I wanted, which would have given me complete leeway to do the right thing. In addition, several editors have pointed out that a consensus of admins is irrelevant, as the general sanction states in part "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." Thus, technically only one admin is needed.

As for the closing and running, some of us do have employment that requires us to work odd hours, and relationships that are more important than Wikipedia (in short, I had work and then it was date night, which had been on the books for a week). I am here now, and I will answer any questions.

As far as reverting my closure, I will make you an offer. I have been wrong before, and I have always been willing to reconsider my actions (See WP:BLPRFC2 for an example of this). Go through the evidence against you, or at least a representative sample (the diffs I posted with your ban notice will suffice. Explain to me how those edits are valid and not a violation of our policies. If you can make a convincing argument that you do edit within our content guidelines, then I will reduce or revoke the ban. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not negotiating with you; I'm suggesting that your close was in error and you take advice to revert it. If you're determined to go through all the pointless mess of an appeal, then let it be so. I'll give you not-much-longer to indicate any change of mind William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
WMC, please self-reflect on your editing in the Singer article. Do you feel you were right, why? Do you feel that you could have done better? Then say so. We take responsibility for our actions, learn lessons, and move on. This is especially true when our actions affect other human beings, which is why we have a BLP policy. Cla68 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

[3] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate greatly if you explained and discussed your actions at the RFE page, instead of being disrespectful to me on IRC. Cenarium (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry!!!

You are an admin, and thus you will always be wrong - even sometimes in the opinion of other admins (who of course are also wrong for opining you are wrong, in both fact and action)! It goes with the territory. CCPE, though, is really, really, hard to even begin to be considered as having the possibility of there being the potential of being not wrong. It's tough, because what appears to be simple isn't, and because the same players will be appearing on the bill over the coming days, weeks and months (or until the curtain is pulled down) all decisions need to be made with an eye to future requests and a mind to what has gone before. Also, the major issue with the Climate Change articles is that we want them to be edited by those very accounts that are brought up on Probation requests - just in compliance with policy. Believe me, this makes it almost impossible to be seen to be right. The point of all the above is that you may be more than a little dismayed to see me opposing your ban on WMC, but it is not anything personal - I think WMC should not edit the article but upon criteria more in relation to his recent editing of it, rather than historically - and I think you should really stay and help. If you stay long enough, two or three days would be my guess, you will likely have the opportunity to explain to me where I got it wrong. As I said, it goes with the territory. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your close, again

I'm struggling to understand your close. You said I find the diffs presented by SlimVirgin and others to be highly disturbing. The fact that they come from three consecutive years turns it into a pattern. In 2008, there was the Mars nonsense in the lede. In late 2009, diffs have been presented by ATren of WMC sourcing content to RealClimate, which is wrong on several different levels. SlimVirgin's diffs come from 2010. There appears to be general agrement that sanctions should be based on edits *since* the probation(Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests for enforcement#Sanctions.2C_especially bans_or blocks.2C should not_be based_on_edits made_before the beginning_of this_probation.3F although edits before then could be "taken into consideration" perhaps. Having looked at the diffs provided by SV of edits *after* the probation, I can see nothing very exciting, but you say "SlimVirgin's diffs come from 2010". Could you provide a few - perhaps 2-3 - diffs *since* the probation that you consider BLP-threatening; or if you can't find any that bad, the 2-3 edits since then that are the wors, or the most "highly distubing" as you put it? This should be an easy task, because they should be chosable from the few that SV has already supplied William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Please could you come to the Enforcement request page, re WMC's appeal, and answer the concerns there. I have no problem with admin's being bold, but I do feel there is a requirement for such actions to be discussed promptly where there are questions over the rationale. Should there be no response within a reasonable time, then I am constrained to open a discussion with the purpose of overturning your close and substituting it for one that satisfies the consensus between the admins (which, of course, you would be welcome to join). I hope that this will not be necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • First things first, I unreservedly apologise for taking so long in notifying you of my actions - I think I edited every damn page involved except that of yours; that was remiss of me.
      I have overturned the ban imposed by you on William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) on editing Fred Singer, following my reading of consensus following WMC's appeal. Technically, Dr Connolley is correct regarding the application of BLP upon edits prior to the setting up of the Probation. I have re-opened the discussion regarding the appropriate manner of dealing with WMC's recent editing of the article, and you may wish to comment there. As I have been at pains to convey, please do not regard this as a criticism of your good faith efforts - it is simply a case of needing to be careful in applying the letter of policy since there are likely to be consequences in the future. I trust we shall see you again among the CCPE pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re my question - I too must apologise, because you did provide diffs on my talk page. I've examined the 3 that postdate the sanctions and find them unconvincing; we could discuss this if you like, but the matter may well now be moot William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to talk you up on your offer to discuss your edits, but I think it would be best if we wait until the current situation re Singer is resolved. If the indefinite ban is not going to stick (which, at this point seems to be the case) then I would like for us to have a conversation and possibly come to understand each others' positions better. Perhaps IRC or any of the other popular messaging protocols, after the enforcement request is decided? The WordsmithCommunicate 22:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you look at a "!vote" I made on your behalf

Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Straw Poll of uninvolved admins regarding consensus for action re WMC where I have noted your previous preferred option and included it in the poll. I have done this action because you have noted that other interests rightly take priority over editing WP, and you may not have time to place your option before the poll closes. If you wish to certify (by subbing my sig with yours) or change or remove the !vote, please do so promptly. Thanks LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lohan (2nd nomination)

Just a note that when nominating an article for deletion using Twinkle, it sometimes fails to transclude it to the right log. That seems to be what happened here so this AFD is still open. It was mentioned on WT:AFD and I added it to the current closable log so it should be closed soon. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

[Comment redacted by The Wordsmith] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hush your insults you. Wordsmith edits from a phone, so he may have forgotten to add the tildes—or he may have been unable to, and have hoped that SineBot or a colleague would add a tag for him until he reached a computer. AGK 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
What is this twaddle about templates, old fruit? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
:: (Old fruit is cockney rhymning slang for old fruit gum = old chum). --BozMo talk 12:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Chelo61 RfC

Hello, this note is just to tell you that an RfC has begun regarding User:Chelo61. Since you may have been involved with this user, your input is appreciated. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chelo61. Thank you. Phearson (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Time limitation needed

Your proposed close is fine by me, I guess, but I suggest that "Polargeo is prohibited from commenting in the "Result concerning X" section," is less clear than "It is determined that Polargeo is considered an involved admin for the purposes of this page, untill such time as a (majority/consensus/specific number) of admins determines this is no longer the case." This makes it clear that the prohibition is not a punishment for bad behavior, but rather a ruling on involvedness. I further suggest you make an explicit Lar involvedness ruling, either way - in that, I'd ask that you explicitly state if he is involved or uninvolved with respect to WMC and Polargeo, in addition to generally. I bring this here instead of there to avoid the hangers-on, and would honestly like your thoughts. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a few issues we're discussing here, so i'll try to separate them to the best of my ability:
    1. With regards to a note about overturning, your proposed change is reasonable. I had thought it was implied that consensus could overturn any part of a sanction, but if that is not the case I am willing to clarify that.
    2. For making a ruling on Lar's involvedness, i'm a bit more hesitant. The RFC on precisely that question will expire in just a few days, and with 25 endorsing SBHB's summary and 23 endorsing Lar's as of this comment, it seems that there is no hope of consensus. If we can't get consensus amongst the wider group of admins and editors that comment on RFCs, I doubt we can achieve consensus with the handful of admins that hang around here.
    3. If I did propose a statement about Lar, it would be made as a separate resolution so as not to drag the first few statements down with it. It would probably be something along the lines of "Lar is allowed to comment as an uninvolved admin, but is encouraged to voluntarily recuse himself from requests concerning WMC or Polargeo for the next 3 months." Would that be something you might be able to support? The WordsmithCommunicate 18:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
My support dosen't count for beans, so I'll merely say that I appreciate your willingness to take my requests on board, and approve of any ruling WRT Lar - be it that Lar is totally uninvolved, banned, or whatever - I merely want someone to decide and get this behind us. I agree with your second point - perhaps it's unnecessary to cap it - my stronger point is to make it clear that it's a ruling on involvedness, not a punishment for edit-warring. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hungary–Slovakia relations

I do realise that Hungary–Slovakia relations is probably not your most beloved article, but a very brief look at Talk:Hungary–Slovakia_relations#Hungarians_of_the_Carpathian_Basin and the edits/behaviour of User:Squash Racket should demonstrate why a level-headed objective administrator is still required. Squash Racket has made some fairly controversial unilateral changes and is completely dismissing anything resembling a debate. I suspect he may be a child (I do not mean this as an attack, merely an observation made in earnest), making it extremely difficult to conduct a mature debate. His points, being so logic-defying as to almost be non-sequiturs have largely collapsed, yet I doubt this will have pulled the breaks on his fervour. Since I do not wish to edit war, a little informal mediation would be much appreciated if you have the time. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The incredibly one-sided way of Happenstance's description of the problem full of personal attacks is not a big surprise after he — among other attacks on myself — labeled my clearly constructive edits as "vandalism" before. Considering his constant civility issues I wonder how he has the guts to label others children.
Among my "fairly controversial changes" I changed an interpretation of a politician's words into the actual words said during the speech, I added referenced material etc. His main problem is that he wants to highlight the term Carpathian Basin as a controversial term, because his favorite Slovak politicians had done so. The media of both countries involved — Hungary and Slovakia — have rejected the "controversy" as a joke, Happenstance still wants to emphasize it. Talking of collapsing arguments...
Since he doesn't wish to edit war after edit warring for a while, feel free to share your opinion on the matter. Squash Racket (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I feel confident in allowing my contributions to the debate speak for me. Had you redirected half the effort you just put into that reply into trying to come to an agreeable compromise, there would have been no need to resort to requesting mediation. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the both of you could use Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down. Editors would behave so much differently if they could all sit down and drink tea together, or perhaps a nice tasty beer if that is your style. I had a lovely blueberry ale from a local microbrewery a few days ago that would have made me want to work productively with Bambifan101 if he was there with me. Anyway, it seems that you are both reasonable editors with different opinions on what is best for Wikipedia. If you want my assistance, I can help you mediate this dispute. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There may just be some truth in that: were I able to discuss with my native Aussie accent, deliver my points laden with "mate"s and bursts of laughter, and use colourful local colloquialisms I'm sure I would appear less intransigent. Anyway, Thank you for offering to help, and any time you wish to step in on talk is cool. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The amount of content being edit warred over is increasing; any time you wish to step in would be great. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Happenstance removes material from Der Spiegel and The Economist while adds irrelevant material making false comparisons between the situation in Quebec and South Slovakia. Squash Racket (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A request

Hi WS, I responded today to something you posted on the CC probation about RfCs and filibustering, because I felt it was factually inaccurate. [4] Then I noticed I'd posted it in the uninvolved section, so I removed it. [5] Could I ask you to post something under your comment to the effect that I posted my disagreement, or strike through the part of your post that refers to RfCs and filibustering? I wouldn't normally bother about this kind of detail, but I feel strongly that article RfCs are one of the key tools in breaking down group-editing, for the want of a better term, and I wouldn't like to see anything discourage them. I can well imagine in future one of the players pointing to your post to put someone off posting an RfC. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-pedophile activism" Article Nominated for Deletion

You have previously edited or commented on the article entitled "Anti-pedophile activism." It has now been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to follow or contribute to the AfD process, please visit the page created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-pedophile activism. Your input would be appreciated. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

half asleep

Hi there. Half asleep. Saw my name and thought kill! I think it is amusing that the least biased of editors is banned from acting as an uninvolved admin based on no real policy whatsoever :) Polargeo (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also CC articles are not my main editing area, they never have been. There are no rulings by arbcom or anyone else preventing an editor from acting as an uninvolved admin because they have actually edited some articles in a very large topic area. The important thing is to be seen to be neutral and uninvolved in any particular case. I strongly feel the whole "you have actually edited some of the thousands of CC articles" to be a complete red herring in the whole debate but unfortunately one that Lar has gamed to his advantage. Still nobody has shown me the policy or arbcom ruling which applies here. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
One phrase grounded in policy that may apply is from WP:ADMIN, saying "Administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." Since you edit global warming articles and participate significantly as an editor, as opposed to simply taking administrative actions on occasion, you are seen more as an editor than an administrator in the topic area. Therefore, you may not be neutral with regards to user conduct disputes in this area. Even if this is not explicitly spelled out in policy, I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies. In addition, your contributions to the sanctions area lately have been rather POINTy, especially you filing an enforcement request against yourself. When that is factored in, it is clear that you could use a break from the area. I think it is everyone's hope that in three months you will have a new sense of perspective, and be able to act as a neutral, uninvolved admin. You do seem like you are capable of being a reasonable person, so I am willing to help you obtain said perspective if you ask for it. Just know that I have nothing personal against you; it was just necessary to end the drama. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I accept the pointy, accept the drama even accept a three month ban etc. but I do not accept that my personal editing of certain CC articles bars me from acting as uninvolved in all CC articles in cases where I do not have "direct involvement" in a particular issue. I know my RfC/U against Lar appears to have tied me to WMC but that is simply not the case I raised the RfC/U as a genuine concern I have had with Lar's bias which actually came to my attention because of some astonishing comments of his with regard to a previous case involving Stephan Schulz. I just got more and more amazed by Lar's bias the more I watched things unfold. Lar has not had to deal with me as an admin it has been me trying to deal with him and yet I now find he has the bulk of the support when he moves my comments after I have reverted his first move. Lar should not deal with me in his admin role, simply never. Polargeo (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyway. I accept the judgement regarding myself. I understand the complex reasons behind it and I sincerely hope that in three months when my ban ends it will be irrelevent as there will be no enforcement page, increased cooperation between editors and less tribalism. Polargeo (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI comment

Struck my mention of Lar. It wasn't intended as a swipe at Lar -- I thought it was fairly obvious that Hipocrite was giving Lar a taste of his own, which is why I mentioned his name (i.e., "we know why you're doing this, but knock it off anyway"). But I struck that bit to avoid any misunderstandings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you did it, and I thank you for striking that remark. I also hope you understand that I consider myself even-handed, and if Lar had taken a passing shot at you I would have made the same request of him. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No prob. Feel free to call me out whenever you think I'm out of line. I might not always agree with you, but I'll take your views on board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Mediation Committee

It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. The open tasks template, which you might like to add to your watchlist, is for co-ordinating our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. I have also subscribed your e-mail address to the committee mailing list, which is occasionally used for internal discussion and for periodical updates; feel free to post to this at any point if you need feedback from the other mediators. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you! For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Arbcom Case Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by WavePart (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Ronnie Baxter protected for being recreated?

Hi, I can see the reasons why the article has been deleted, but why has it been protected for being recreated? I want to recreate it without any copyright infringements. - Nick C (t·c) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was create-protected because after I deleted it, somebody else recreated the copyright violation. If you say you can rewrite it without infringing anyone else's copyright, then i'll unprotect it for now. The WordsmithCommunicate 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wavepart

Unless I've missed something (in which case my apologies) you left Wavepart no block notice and have subsequently offered no apology. Why not? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I left no block template. That was an error on my part. I do not, however, intend to apologize as I believe that this user is a sockpuppet of someone. I stand by my block. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Falsifiability. Kind of an important part of proper reasoning. Enough said. WavePart (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't plan to block you again unless you show more suspicious behaviour. Prove me wrong by being a productive editor and I won't trouble you. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Fine. I would hope that in the future you extend a little more good faith toward the next guy. That's honestly what concerns me most. The whole premise by which wikipedia operates starts to fall apart if fear of being blocked starts to influence legitimate content positions that editors can take. (It probably has already to a significant amount, but hopefully this can decrease.) WavePart (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we're getting somewhere. Why have you left no apology for the lack of the block template? Are people-that-you-consider-socks such lowly forms of life that you have no obligations towards them? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I already admitted that it was an error, and I should have left one. Next time I will do so. Keep in mind that I am a fairly new admin and have not blocked many people, so sometimes I make mistakes. WavePart, I apologise for not leaving a template (though I still feel that the block itself was correct). The WordsmithCommunicate 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for providing that apology William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Re [6]. FWIW, since I've been critical of you, I think the evidence for not-new-user-ishness that you list there is good William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I felt it was about as compelling as you can get without a Checkuser, Scibaby or not. It wasn't that I just went with my gut feeling, I really took time to comb through the account's contributions. Some claim that I assumed bad faith and blocked without looking carefully, but that isn't true. There is more evidence that I found when analysing his edits, but what I posted in my statement is a fairly representative sample of what I discovered. He may end up being a productive contributor, sockpuppet or not - only time will tell. He seems to be editing in other areas now, so my immediate concerns have been at least partially alleviated. Anyway, I appreciate your comment. The WordsmithCommunicate 08:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll just point out that you may be wrong in saying "sockpuppet"; he could be a returning user (he could also be the ip-edited-in-2001-2003 but that is improbable), which would make him an alternate account, which is permissible, not a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is possible, yes, however the "alternative plausible explanation" that he gave to get unblocked makes no mention of this. He mentions a few IP edits 8 years ago, but by now he would have completely forgotten the content policies. I'm fairly certain things like 3RR didn't even exist 8 years ago. Instead of concocting that story about seeing something in the news and coming here to edit, if he had simply stated "Yes, I am a WP:CLEANSTART account and/or had a previous account here, and i'll disclose that to a functionary" I would have been willing to unblock immediately, provided said functionary could confirm that the previous account was not malicious or banned. So while your alternate theory is plausible, the user hasn't mentioned that. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. So I think the most likely reason is that he is a returning account but has "good" reason not to want to name that account William M. Connolley (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
If he would disclose it to a functionary that he trusts (arb, checkuser, steward, or anything else requiring WMF identification) then I would feel much more comfortable with him. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect

Is currently protected, could you move this [7] to it please? mark nutley (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you not do this. Mark, who has approved the sources in that article? Hipocrite (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Lar has said he will take a look at them, however only two are new, the others are from before my probation and were not actually added by me mark nutley (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the sources have not yet been vetted, you are not permitted to request the article be moved to article space. I see at least one source that is obviously unreliable. I will, of course, put the article up for deletion as soon as you move it - the underlying problems have not been fixed - it still treats the effect as some sort of quasi-scientific hypothesis as opposed to a joke. It fails to adress confirmation bias and illusory correlation. Further, you have not adressed the BLP problems that persist in the article, per Lar's comment. Hipocrite (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Funny that, when i had it described as a joke there were complaints not it`s a quasi-scientific hypothesis Why not point out what you think are blp issues on the talk page there and i`ll fix them mark nutley (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, you need to wait until the problems are cleared up. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Is it appropriate to return talk page content?

You recently placed a block regarding edit warring on User:PrimeViper. Is it appropriate to return these comments to the talk page until such time as block evasion is confirmed? [8] Active Banana (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think so, yes. If PV provides evidence of block evasion other than "Its obvious" then they can be removed again. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

STRONG objection

to that closing summary. It has a missing parenthesis in the second to last bullet. (and can it be COINCIDENCE that it's the ... dum dum dum... CLOSING parenthesis???!??? I think not!). COMPLETELY unsatisfactory!

More seriously, thanks a lot for taking the time to put together a reasoned and balanced summary. I certainly would endorse it and I hope others would find it satisfactory as well. It contains actionable suggestions and food for thought, which NW's "not a close" did not. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know its not quite your ideal closing, but I do try to consider myself fair. I hope that you take my words to heart, and spend some time thinking about whether you truly can act in an unbiased manner. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
First, if it was my ideal close it wouldn't have much chance of being accepted, closes are about finding a consensus position. Second, if the number of good, unbiased and thoughtful admins that participate at the enforcement board continues to increase, or if the coming ArbCom case accomplishes good things, recusal certainly becomes easier to contemplate (and more attractive as well... after all who likes comments like this one? It was calculated to wind me up, presumably... and I resisted. but you are no stranger to those either.) ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Global warming

[9] I don't think it is necessary for an individual appeal approach on any article in Wikipedia. WMC doesn't own the Global warming article any more than I do. The article belongs to everybody under Wikipedia's current culture and system. If you post your suggestion, which I think is a good one, on the article's talk page then I and others can doubtlessly join in and hopefully make some progress on it. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. WMC is known as one of the most prolific GW editors and I wanted his opinion before I brought it to a more "public" place. If he says that they tried that and it didn't work, then I avoid making a fool of myself. Besides, most of the major GW editors probably watch his page anyway so I was sure to get a reasonable cross section of opinions. The WordsmithCommunicate 23:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately the initial reaction probably could have been foretold with a fair degree of accuracy. I predict that after the ArbCom case concludes the regular editors involved with that article, if they're still allowed to participate in that topic area, will be more open to such suggestions. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In other words, Arbcom will have no choice but to make specific content decisions regarding this topic area. Otherwise the same disagreements will open up when new scientifically literate editors come along. The solution would be for Arbcom to mandate that no one with a graduate degree in the natural sciences is allowed to touch the article, but given the anonymity of Wikipedia that would likely be unenforceable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
SBHB, anyone holding a doctorate, master's, bachelor's, or no degree at all is welcome to participate in the climate change articles if they're willing and able to follow WP's rules, videlict, not abusing BLPs, not bullying other editors, following NPOV, and in general being willing to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise. I believe the ArbCom's decision won't read exactly like that, it rarely does, but I expect that it will at least remind the parties (including me) that observance of WP's policies and guidelines is not optional, no matter what the individual academic qualifications of the participating editors are. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You misspelled "videlicet." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you SBHB, I have a sticky keyboard that is driving me crazy. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Run it under warm water for a while then let it dry. Usually works like a charm. Be sure to drain out as much water as possible before you leave it to dry. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Cla, you seem like a pretty clueful person who is also knowledgeable on this topic (remind me again why you're not an arb? I remember voting for you). What do you think of the compromise I proposed on WMC's talkpage? The WordsmithCommunicate 01:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
He made too many enemies. Actually being right about things counts for rather less than one might think, and enemies accrete over time while supporters fade away. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I completely support your idea. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. If I get some more support for it, i'll take it to Talk:Global warming. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
SBHB I'm not sure I see any need for ArbCom to make any content decisions in this area. But then I don't think this is primarily a content problem. It's almost all behavior. I know you and I differ on this. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

knowledgeable on this topic - that seems to me a curious observation. I've never seen Cla demonstrate any knowledge of the science. What are you referring to? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Where were you looking for such demonstrations? ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
His editing? Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Of what? I was asking WMC, actually. And remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, H has already said the obvious. Failing editing, I suppose knowledgeable discussion on talk pages. If TW isn't up to answering (though I would hope he would be, he must have got that impression from smoething other than bluster) than you may feel free to have a go. Go on, Cla must have made some good science-based edit to Cl Ch recently: what is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You tend not to answer my questions directly. So I'll return the favor. Why do you think that making a "good science-based edit" (whatever that means) equates to knowledge of the topic area, or the converse? I don't edit in computer science related topic areas at all, which proves nothing about my knowledge of the topic area. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
So, then, Lar, wouldn't you think that me refering to you as "knowledgeable on [the] topic" of computer science would be a curious observation? Hipocrite (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily, since I assert that I am degreed in the area. (BS in Comp Sci '83 MTU MS in Comp Eng '93 Syracuse) But even if I didn't so assert... still not necessarily. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Lar, am I knowledgeable on the topic of hydrodynamics? You're doing that thing where you don't admit that you know you're wrong again. 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this is an unsigned comment I have no basis for a determination one way or the other. But, whoever you are, do you assert you are so knowledgable somewhere? (link?) Is it verifiable? But we veer from what started the thread... WMC's assertion that lack of edits implies lack of expertise. A point still not addressed satisfactorily by him or anyone else. As for the character assassination in your last sentence... pfft. Nice try. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is trying to establish why TW has the opinion he has. If you've got no idea why he might think Cla is knowledgable, perhaps you;d be best off not answering William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that's what you're trying to establish, yes. What I'm trying to establish is why lack of edits in an area is evidence of lack of expertise. Which view you've been asked to justify several times now and have always failed to do. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You know, Lar seems to be pretty knowledgable about Wikipedia behavioral policies ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Logic failure: what Cla is showing is lack of evidence of expertise, not evidence of lack of expertise. I'm sure you'll understand the difference if you think about it a bit. If you'd like some evidence of lack, though, Cla supplies it below William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, if being "knowledgable on this topic" is of such enormous importance to you, you might consider refraining from editing or taking a back seat regarding BLPs and articles on rhetorical subjects like The Gore Effect, or at least let editors with more knowledge on those topics take the lead. If you'd like, I could mentor you a bit on some of those subject areas, given my knowledge and/or professional experience on the topics of fair treatment of people being written about and literary devices such as satire. I'm not sure about your experience and knowledge concerning politics, but if you find it convenient, feel free leave those topics in my capable hands, as well. You just sit back and leave that technical stuff to me. I'm sure it will provide you with some relief as you concentrate on improving the science aspects of our Wikipedia climate-change articles. Fair trade? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You (and Lar) are failing to read what I wrote. Let me try again, in the hope that you'll understand. TW said, that he thought Cla seemed knowledgable about climte change. That seemed odd to me - I've never seen Cla say anything that demonstrated any understanding of the subject. So I asked TW to explain why he made his statement. TW hasn't responded, and neither you nor Lar have said anything useful. If you dislike the conversation and wish to derail it - which appears to be your intent - please stop. If you don't know the answer, fine - let TW answer for himself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm so sorry, William M. Connolley. I was derailing your derailment? ... What's your excuse? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
If you will get people who are skeptical and less knowledgable than WMC to stay off of all topic related to the science of global warming (including Global Warming), I can pretty much assure you that I can get him to stay away from all biographies of skeptics. Deal? Hipocrite (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's just wait to see if the possible ArbCom case culls some players from the herd of independent minds, then maybe we'll discuss troop reductions [mixing metaphors twice over, here, but it's been a long day]. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
WMC, I was the one who tracked-down the error in the Global Warming article that the university professor had identified after you declined to do so. You know, the same professor who stated that it was obvious that the article, "was obviously not written by a professional climate scientist" or words to that effect. Remember that? Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Please state the course of events accurately. WMC did not "decline" to track down the review; he never said "no, I'm not going to do that." You simply got around to it first. While you helpfully tracked down the review, it was others who interpreted what the review was referring to specifically (the wording was subtle) and made the actual correction. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact I asked David Archer independently, which is how come I knows the context around Cla's partial quote. As Boris has already pointed out, at no point before during or after this process did Cla show any understanding of the science involved.
Archer's quote isn't quite how Cla likes to remember it, either. More exactly it is I can tell occasionally that it was not written by professional climate scientists, but it does a good job. For example, the sentence "A 2008 paper predicts that the global temperature may not increase during the next decade because short-term natural fluctuations may temporarily outweigh greenhouse gas-induced warming." is taking that 2008 paper a lot more seriously than I personally would say it warrants; the sentence seems to me naive. That paper was stuffed in by the skeptics; I'd argued for it to be de-weighted. By the time we came to discuss Archers comment it was already gone Talk:Global_warming/Archive_60. I'm sure you can all see the moral William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
My phone is terrible for editing, so I would appreciate it if someone could remove the section header and indent appropriately. I meant that Cla. Seems to know about the topic's coverage on Wikipedia so he can probably judge the merits of my suggestion. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now had you said that to begin with none of this discussion would have happened, and Cla wouldn't have had to pretend to understand any of the science William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That last comment isn't helpful, WMC, and you've been warned about that sort of thing before. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Err no, actually it was all rather helpful. Unlike Oh, I'm so sorry, William M. Connolley. I was derailing your derailment? ... What's your excuse? which wasn't. But since it was from "your side" you ignored JWB. So please, stop being such a hypocrite William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Almost entirely, the only sense that Lar and I are on the same side is that we're concerned about some of your actions. And how was my comment unhelpful? It was made to prompt you to some introspection about the attitude you're displaying here. Please don't consider the comment you quoted rhetorical. I really don't get how your comments were not a derailment but mine were. I thought I was building on your comment, questioning underlying assumptions behind it. Seemed like a pretty apt connection to me. (In the last sentence, I was actually thinking of my first comment in this thread, but it also applies to the derail/derailment comment.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)just added the sentence in parentheses at the end -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
And I'm confident that if you believe that, you'll be able to see that in exactly the same way my own comment was helpful. See the symmetry? See the hypocrisy? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work!

The Admin's Barnstar
For the apparently thankless task of drafting a suggested closing summary at the RfC/U. Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your kindness. I do make an effort to be even-handed, no matter what people assume about me. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I was just popping by to offer some words of encouragement. Glad to see Tryp beat me to it. ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Appeal

Against my sanction [10] Since the ban was introduced i have created several articles with not one single problematic reference.

Given none of the ref`s i have used were a problem i would like to ask for this sanction to be lifted. If you decline i would like to enquire as to how i am meant to get the sanction lifted? mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As recently as 8 June you have attempted to include unquestionably unreliable sources in mainspace. Hipocrite (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Diff please mark nutley (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
In this diff, you ask an admin to move your version of The Gore Effect to mainspace. That version had unquestionably unreliable sources in it. When asked who had reviewed the sources in the article, you were unable to state who had already looked at them, merely that someone said they would look at them. When someone did finally look at the sources, they removed the obviously unreliable sources - in other words, you still don't understand our sourcing policies. I note in your most recent userspace draft you yet again use obviously unreliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, sanction appeals should not be directed at an individual admin. TW doesn't own the sanction William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That is not accurate hipocrite, i asked lar to move it after he checked the refs. And cla checked the refs and saw no problems with them. And there are no unreliable refs in my userspace, if there is point it out. @WMC WS said i could appeal the sanction to him, which is what i am doing mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. "Your [sic] full of crap," and it's your side who is complaining about the incivility of the science cabal? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If he thinks it`s uncivil i`ll strike it, however what he wrote above is crap mark nutley (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, mark, Cla68 did see a problem with them. In fact, his first edit to your article was "New American isn't reliable", and his second was "ditto". In your current userspace draft you use obviously unrelaible www.futureconscience.com - "Future Conscience comes from the thoughts and opinions mainly of one individual – R. A. Gordon...." This is not a review of the sources of your userspace draft, merely a cherry pick of the lowest hanging fruit. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
When was that ref inserted? And was it by me? Who knows, after the two MFD`s lots people worked on that article. Why do you think www.futureconscience.com is unreliable? It is a convenience link to the bbc interview. I think it is reliable enough to show a video don`t you? mark nutley (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Checked it and i did insert that ref back in 11:00, 7 January 2010 [11] So quite a while ago. Since the numerous editors worked on that article and none removed it. The only two refs i added to that article before moving to mainspace were The Baltimore Sun A reliable source i believe, and the Herald Sun so since my sanction I have in fact not used a single unreliable source have I? mark nutley (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, your attack on Hipocrite is uncivil, and it it not welcome on this page. Please redact it, or I will. In addition, I am going to have to decline your appeal. Some of your recent actions (specifically, the Gore Effect issue) make it clear that you still don't understand the purpose of the sanction. The next step for an appeal would be WP:AN, or ArbCom. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Redacted, would you please explain what you find problematic with my actions re The Gore Effect? mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You asked me to move it before any admin had reviewed them. When asked about a few of them, you disclaimed all responsibility by saying that you don't know who added them. In reality, when you work on a userspace draft and then ask for it to be moved to mainspace, you are responsible for them. Claiming that they were there before the sanction, or that someone else added them, indicates that you still don't get it. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You are in error, I asked lar to move it to mainspace and assumed he would check the refs, the same for you in fact if you had moved it i would assume you would check the refs. If i had done such a bad job then why would cla say "Mark did a good job on it"? And bear in mind, that article was edit by User:ATren User:Hipocrite User:RL0919 User:GoRight User:MikeHobday User:Jack_Merridew User:Collect User:Orangemike User:Spoonkymonkey User:Grundle2600 Do you not think as all those people who edited the article would know a rs whe nthey see one? and as they did not remove it i assumed it was fine mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email. Netalarmtalk 10:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: an article you deleted

Hey there. Could you take a second look at Christopher Hopper (the first version)? You deleted it citing "Unsourced for 3 years, no indication of notability" with no attempt at improvement and no discussion before or after. I believe this deletion was out of process. This is a published author and musician and although a little biased there was nothing contentious in his bio, thereby I'm confident that WP:BLPDEL did not apply in this case. I strongly feel this article should have gone to AfD or at least Prodded instead of outright deleted. Will you consider restoring it? -- Ϫ 14:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze

Remember this? :-) It took me quite a while, but I think I've got something worth looking at. I didn't work from the old text, just used it as yet another source for links. Please take a look at User:GRuban/Dell Schanze and comment. If the comments are short, here or on my talk page will work. If they're long, they should probably go on the "article" talk. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Ronz isn't going to accept it no matter what, though I've asked for specific improvements I could make. Mainspacing. Feel free to participate in the likely coming AFD; I'll still be happy to hear suggestions for improvements, and will try hard to make them. --GRuban (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. Looks like a different admin has intervened. --GRuban (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Private mediation.

As a member of the Mediation Committee, I wonder if you would mind giving some attention to this subject [12] , which I posted on the policy discussion page some time ago. Please note that I am no longer involved in any mediation process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana SPI

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Chzz#Suspicion Apparently someone else has brought User:Active Banana's socking to attention. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gerald_Gonzalez 190.136.178.239 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Posted this at Chzz`s talk but copying it here, If Active Banana were using socks then they would have !voted here [13] They did not, nor have they edited the article, methinks someone is chucking mud mark nutley (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The poster on Chzz talk page has a point. If you look through all 3 person's edit history you will see that they edit the same pages. 190.136.178.239 (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He may be a sock, or he may not. I don't care, but I don't see any evidence that he is violating any of our policies. Gerald Gonzalez behaves completely differently. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hungary–Slovakia relations

I would greatly appreciate your mediation there, as you promised. Squash continues showing nothing but contempt for fellow editors, and disdain for anything with a semblance of discussion. Having felt that childlike mimicry of my arguments is simply not obnoxious and ineffective enough, he is now going so far as to edit my posts when they contain something he disagrees with - which, shockingly in a dispute, happens to be everything. I can't imagine how anything resembling a rational, mature, and mutually-respecting debate can even occur on the talk. I've held off on restoring the NPOV revision of the page in the interest of continuing discussion, but now that Squash has yet again successfully derailed my attempts at discussing the changes, and considering I don't see why we ought to be stuck with a politicised, nationalist, and ungrammatical revision of a page due to one user's intransigence, my patience is beginning to wear thin. —what a crazy random happenstance 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have closed that NPA thread and made comments in two others, trying to move the merge discussion forward. If you or Squash or anyone else makes a personal attack, I will take action personally so he doesn't have to. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. In case you're wondering, this is the horrifying PA, incomparably nasty to anything Squash had ever said. —what a crazy random happenstance 00:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with you being around, so he can't drag me into an uncivil discussion, but next time please drop me a line about continuing, there haven't been new comments there for almost two weeks.
I'm a little shocked that he is STILL that angry about removing his direct personal attack, but policy allows me to do so and this one wasn't his first or second one.
Feel free to overview the whole thread ("successful derailment of Happenstane's attempts at discussing the changes"), and ask me too if something's not clear. Squash Racket (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be a perfect time for some neutrality at Talk:Hungary–Slovakia_relations#Quebec_language_law. I honestly do apologise for constantly badgering you with this dispute, I am sure you're as fed up with it as I am, but as soon as I get a neutral administrator to realise Squash Racket is just being contrary and isn't actually interested in discussion whilst his version happens to be the one which is up, the sooner I can be rid of him and discuss this with someone who is actually aware of how the discussion process is conducted, and able to work in good faith towards a mutually-agreed compromise. There are other editors who are interested in debating this, on both sides of the issue, but none of them are particularly keen on coming out of the woodwork whilst Squash is sitting there in the apparently earnest belief that childlike mimicry qualifies as a valid argument. I very rarely act towards anyone, online or otherwise, in a spirit of such open hostility, but I am dealing with an editor so abrasive and openly nationalist, that, were this a higher traffic article, I have no doubt would have been on the receiving end of a block by now. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the way how H. tries to add a 2001 citation which doesn't even qualify as a "comparison" to a 2009 controversy, he definitely won't succeed. His drama doesn't help much with the whole issue. Join the debate if you have time.
Making direct personal attacks on the talk page of a mediating admin, who already warned Happenstance to stop with that is not the best idea and is only the next attempt to drag me into an uncivil discussion. Squash Racket (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but:

Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

And I did indicate what was removed. But if you wish to keep it, then OK. Squash Racket (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:RPA permits editing the comments of others to removing obvious, clear-cut, true personal attacks. Whilst I would normally reserve that for slurs and the like, I suppose there is merit in whitewashing criticism of yourself from third editors' talks too. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If you consider what I removed "criticism of myself" instead of clear-cut personal attack, then I don't really understand what you are doing here at all. Squash Racket (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Privately criticising an editor based on my genuine perceptions of his conduct, and expressing fear over the welfare of an article if said editor remains intransigent. I realise this doesn't square with your definition of a personal attack, but that is hardly my fault. I think it would be wisest to leave this be and return to discussion of content, now that it is finally progressing along somewhat. —what a crazy random happenstance 18:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't try to validate "childlike mimicry", "abrasive", "openly nationalist" etc. with that comment.
Nobody is "intransigent" just because he's not willing to buy into false arguments (as I have shown on the talk page of the article). Again. Yes, let's focus on content. Squash Racket (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In the two sections (Slota and Quebec) where discussion was going on to some degree, things are at a standstill again. In the former, Squash has declared that he is closing the debate, since he simply doesn't need to listen to me, and in the latter, his proposal for a compromise seems to be that his section will remain exactly as he wrote it, but he also reserves the right to reintroduce material from a previous, deeply biased revision of the page which predates this dispute, simply because it was me who removed it. I won't comment, but these sections could again use your input. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The Slota debate was over whether we should keep a still very small paragraph about a (or the?) key figure in the deterioration of the relations of the two countries. Yes, I think we should even EXPAND that section with Slota's other actions and proposals.
H. didn't read (or understand) my comment at the Quebec debate, I won't repeat it here again.
Before this debate Happenstance unilaterally threw out about half of the article and started an edit war (in which I didn't participate) over his new version DESPITE many editors expressing discontent over how he reedited the article. That ended in a page protection, NOT a concensus. I want to recover some stuff from that earlier version, for example something more about the shared history of the two nations, which is very important to a neutral reader in understanding the present relations. Squash Racket (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Edit "warring"

I had already vowed that that would be my last edit on the page. I do not want to get into an edit war and I already supposed the clear-as-day evidence. I would like to assume good faith of the other editor, despite him having been deeply offensive to me and unrepentant.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd like to assume good faith? That's presumably why you said, "Please don't take your personal gripes with me out on my edits [...] No more reverts," and then edit-warred over my deletion of material within my own userspace is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Here we go again. I do not want to be at war with any other editor. Have your own way and leave me alone, I don't care enough to stress myself out about this.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
But you did care enough to edit-war over my deletion of material within my own userspace, and to insist that everyone except you follow WP:BRD? And to call me "vile and pitiable"? Just to clarify? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, actually. I cared to a point, which has since expended. I called your refusal to apologise for your language "vile and pitiable". I genuinely apologise for the material in your own userpsace; I was confused as to those rules, and would not go as far as to describe it as an edit war. Treasurytag, your attitude towards me has been reprehensible and I am sorry if you think I have been equally villainous.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Answer

Word, i send you e-mail, waiting for your response. --Tadijaspeaks 09:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

A question

Per the original revert restrictions [14], I have to follow every revert with at least 50 words on the discussion page within 30 minutes of the revert. Now, per this [15], am I correct in assuming that the 50 word stipulation no longer holds? Not that I don't intend to follow my reverts with a discussion (in fact, I usually discuss both before and after), but it does get a little tiresome when I am reverting banned users [16] or obnoxious POV-pushers [17]. Athenean (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis 2

Hi, I was curious if this was going forward at some point. - RoyBoy 03:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

...oops, seems to have slipped off my radar. I'll begin in the morning, when I can look at it with fresh eyes. Sorry! The WordsmithCommunicate 03:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

opinion?

There was just a mass shooting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. At first, I thought it was Alamogordo, New Mexico, which is a GA that I helped to write with Uncia. Anyway, it is possible that some people will want to write an article.

Rather than point to rules, is it better to think of certain events and see if there are some that are and are not good for articles?

How about a killing of a person where there is a lot of press coverage, some of it national, and a whole lot for about a week?

Or how about an employee shootout?http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/12/new.mexico.shooting/index.html?hpt=T2

Or should we just stick with big things, like France and Finland and maybe the latest spy swap? I think the spy swap will be as encyclopedic as the Israeli nuclear bomb test in the 1970's. (Vela incident). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Your user page

I like the thingy you have at the top of your user page, can you let me know how it works? mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which thingy specifically, the navbar? The WordsmithCommunicate 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep, the thingmebob which links to your talk, userpages and whatnots :) mark nutley (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

writing competition

Hi there. Im looking to have a writing competition held in September and I am looking for a couple people to help me with their thoughts and ideas. I have had some input on the competition and have had several chats with people outside the wikipedia talk pages and I have decided to keep the competition limited to the following restraints:

1. Judges and competitors are separate and there has to be a finite list of them.

2. The competition should range from a few days to no more than 2 weeks, depending on the theme. Not a year long competition and not multiple stages.

3. The theme will be either creating ONE new article, expanding a stub, illustrating a large article with no pictures, editing an article in crisis or something similar to these ideas. If its successful we can have more competitions with other themes.

4. My general idea (but this needs serious development) is to have each article judged two or three times. The top ten are then announced as finalists and every judge then reviews those articles and the top three are announced.

4. Simple is good. Decide theme, decide rules, find people, define judges, define scoring criteria, assign topic or stub or whatever, come up with a way to discourage other users from working on the page (by far most difficult part requiring a lot of ingenuity and good ideas). Judge. Sounds simpler than it really is doesn´t it?

5. Keep it informal, simple and fun.

6. Find a name for it.

Wanna help me with this? I´ll set up a new page and hope to build a team of three people to make this happen.

Shabidoo | Talk 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reassignment of Abortion-Breast cancer hypothesis RFM?

Please see here. AGK 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Article tags sanction

As you are an uninvolved admin who commented in the uninvolved admin section of the Article tag sanction, I alert you to this.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation in Censorship

Dear sir, A user User:Kkm010 is continously censoring my well cited word on two of the articles namely:

- Suvendu Adhikari
and - All India Trinamool Congress .

I've inserted a controversy section in these two articles, as this political party has open links with banned maoist terrorists. My wrtiting was supported by news reports from some of the very reputed dailies of India such as:
[The Times of India report on AITC-Maoist Nexus]

[IndiaToday on AITC-MAOIST Nexus]
He is saying my edits are degrading the quality of that article. But I am writing a section only after doing research over it and relevant citations are their. Please help me in this. Thanks. -Basuupendra (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Please clarify

You wrote Per the outcome of a recent enforcement request against you, I hereby notify you that you are prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months this is clearly beyond your powers. As a minor token to demonstrate this, I've edited your comments on my talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

More specific with what? My block of WMC? WMC's sanction? My statement on WT:GS/CC/RE? Please be more specific about your request for specificity. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for being somewhat WP:POINTy. Yes, please specify how you feel WMC has violated his sanction, and, at least in the log, give enough context so that the mythical "uninvolved editor" can understand what has happened. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The sanction was that he is not allowed to edit comments left by other people. He deliberately edited my comment informing him of this restriction (rather POINTy himself), and then posted on my talk page taunting me about it, and claiming the restriction was invalid. The restriction most certainly was valid, and he intentionally violated it in his attempt to prove a point. There was no valid BLP or other exemption, and no reason he couldn't have inserted his comment underneath mine rather than in the middle of it. He willfully violated the restriction when there was no valid reason to, so he was blocked for it. If this is enough of an explanation for you, I can make a note of it in the log. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Whilst WMC was clearly acting with an immature attempt to provoke, and I support the block, I'd have taken it to somewhere else to be honest and asked another admin to take action. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  20:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Climate Change sanctions are clear that taking purely administrative action against a user does not make you involved. WMC and others have tried that strategy before, in an effort to disqualify anyone willing to take action. It doesn't work. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I know, but this was not, per se climate change related as the edit was to a post on his talk page, followed up by snark on yours. He POINTly had a go - at you. It's no big issue - I support the block - but frankly with WMC I'd have made it airtight as he'll lawyer around until one of his mates turns up to unblock for "time served" or some other such wikibollox. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Good point. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think what Pedro is referring to is more along the lines of "don't block for incivility directed at yourself". In any case, I'm not sure it really matters. The block was probably unnecessary, a pair of rollbacks would have sufficed, but that's your call. NW (Talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
How so? Please be more specific on how "a pair of rollbacks would have sufficed". Do you think sanctions should be blithely ignored by WMC and we just follow along behind cleaning up the messes made? That doesn't seem like a long term good strategy. Further, the block wasn't for incivility, it was for sanction violation followed up by provocative behavior in gloating about it. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Rollbacking the childish behavior here and at his talk page is a much simpler way to say "we aren't interested in your games" than acknowledging and furthering them their existence by blocking, IMO. NW (Talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
How many times would you advise cleaning up the mess before you'd give up? What message does it send? How many messengers need to be shot before the message is delivered? Please carefully read what ATren says, just below. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
One rollback, in this particular case. If WMC got the message then, then all is well. If he didn't, then that reflects so much more the worse on him. And yes, I am aware of the history here. NW (Talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

General comment: this editor has already earned two lengthy sanctions for this very same behavior. Rollback would have simply started a war, as it's clear that WMC was openly challenging the consensus -- a well-discussed consensus at that. And TWS is clearly uninvolved here. The block was entirely uncontroversial -- and necessary, because previous sanctions have obviously not worked. ATren (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with a handful of editors everything is controversial. That said, i'm pleasantly surprised by how little drama this has generated so far. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate change enforcement

I'll volunteer from the AN post if no one else stands up. I dislike controversial areas like that, so I'd appreciate it if you would keep an eye on any blocks I issue and whatnot. Also, as I said at AN, I won't be as active as I normally am for the next few months, probably. If you could get other volunteers, great; otherwise, I'll do it for the sake of trying to keep this sanction alive. I don't want another war on climate change just because we can't enforce the decision. —fetch·comms 22:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering. If you want, i'd be more than happy to keep an eye on you and help you get used to things. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi, The Wordsmith. I've put your block of WMC on ANI, in case you want to comment. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Action or opinion required

Hi. As the admin officially in charge of blocking me, and as someone who has recently edited the Bradley page, I'd like your opinion of this edit [19]. Is it permissible? Is it permissible for me to remove it? Or do I need to ask you to remove it? Your valuable opinion is sought William M. Connolley (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty clearly a disruptive troll. User now blocked. NW (Talk) 12:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. However, two problems remain: the editing of my comment is still there, and I'd like to remove it. And the question: can I? Who do I apply to for an answer to this question? When I wrote this I assumed that TW, as "Da Man", was the right one to ask. But now he has taken to editing CC articles (see next section) this becomes rather less clear. I could just do it, but then all those nice people will have hissy fit, which would presumably be Bad. Shall we have a nice big bureaucratic section of the RFE board - is that the best way to handle these trivial problems? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Come on WMC, you should know that reverting someone else editing your comment is acceptable. You must know that from all the times I've had to revert you for doing what this IP did. So quit the pointy ignorance and just revert it, K? ATren (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
If he reverts without asking for clarification, he'll be taken to task. If he asks for clarification, he's being showing "pointy ignorance." Neat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Except it's puzzling that neither you nor WMC notice the obvious contradiction: this is someone else editing his comment, not him editing someone else's. His revert is not at all in conflict with sanctions or policy, and someone who is such an adherent to the letter of the law should obviously know that. Do you see the pointiness here, SB? Just a few days after he pointedly challenged TWS on a complex legalistic technicality involving a strict interpretation of the probation wording, he now will have us believe he can't tell the difference between reverting the IP and what he did 48 hours ago. It doesn't fly. Much more believable is that the editor who got away with pointy disruption 2 days ago is once again engaging in pointy disruption. But what the hell, why shouldn't he? He's gotten away with it for years, why stop now? Hopefully TWS has the good sense to ignore this provocation completely. ATren (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with reverting an edit of your own comments. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Another question

I notice you've been editing Bradley and now List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (and in particular at a time when case participants are being encouraged to step back from editing). Do you still regard yourself as an uninvolved admin? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I have made a handful of edits to CC pages, and fairly uncontroversial ones at that. U have not engaged in content disputes. If a dispute arises I will recuse from that case. I'm not involved in any significant way. I just saw some work to do and I did it. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you really believe this is "fairly uncontroversial" and not "significant"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I certainly don't regard that as uncontroversial - it has started a minor edit war. I would like to hear TW answer your question, though William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, i believe that it was fairly uncontroversial. Everybody else on the list that I saw had one quote, and this person had many. It disrupted the flow of the page. So, I regard it as a maintenance edit, just like tagging those two unreferenced BLPs WMC made as such. I'm sure every person on that list has made many statements about climate change, some of which contradict. That doesn't mean that we include everything everyone has ever said in the list page. If the inconsistency is notable, it can go on his bio. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Your editing has been clearly partisan; all of your edits have been either to question the qualifications of scientists adhering to the scientific consensus[20][21][22] or to sanitize material relating to a denialist.[23] You can no longer make a pretense of being "uninvolved" as an administrator. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Tagging unreferenced BLPs as unreferenced BLPs is for the benefit of the encyclopedia, nothing else. Would you rather they not be tagged so that someone can maintain them? It tells the reader that the information in the article isn't backed up by reliable sources. It doesn't cast aspersions on the scientists' theories in any way. I can't question their qualifications, I don't even know what their qualifications are. Similarly, I don't know what their papers have said, as I haven't read any of them. I hadn't even heard of them before I saw the articles. To say that you know which way I lean on the CC debate from four maintenance edits is ridiculous, you have no idea where I stand on the science. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not know or care where you stand on the science. Re-read my comment: your editing has been clearly partisan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I've opened a request for modification of the prior sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment you made at ANI in Sven70 ban discussion

There is an obvious need for a sanction in this case, but that doesn't mean a ban discussion is like a RFA; it's more formal as the community is as much of an appeal body as AC and we need to treat users with respect, even if you don't think they are respectful themselves. That is, you don't have the right or the privillege to make lightly of his disability or to be disrespectful to him. That he's also blocked and cannot respond is simply another reason not to act foolishly - even if that was not your intention. I thought you would have the good sense to resolve this without making things worse (and that's why I put my concern as lightly as possible), but your snarky response (Apparently the Internet is serious business. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)) concerns me. I don't know what is going on IRL for you, or whether it's a sleep issue, or whether you are deliberately being difficult, or whether it's burn-out, but it doesn't change the fact that there are some issues with your judgement lately and they need to be addressed sooner rather than later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the latter part of the comment. If I can't decide if something is appropriate or not, it probably isn't. I'll take your word for it at this point, and get some sleep now. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks + good night. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Irony

Is not your strong point. The comment you made about Sven70 and his disability was pretty dumb. As a sysop you hold a position of leadership around here. If you expect to be taken seriously you should conduct yourself in a manner befitting your office, 15:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty the Damned (talk • contribs)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Input please

I'd appreciate your input and feedback regarding my proposed proposed remedy/enforcement found here. Thanks. Minor4th 17:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why words matter

Somewhere in that whole mess of discussion at the CC RFE you asked why "skeptic" may be problematic (or something of the sort). That reminded me of a source, which I added[24] to the bottom of the section (it's all such a mess of micro-threading now that there's no way to figure out what's what. It's not a simple yes/no answer, but I do believe it sheds light on the overall discussion, and does so entirely independent of our little discussion. Guettarda (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That does help show that the entire academic debate is inconsistent with its word use. Sometimes they are used interchangeably, while other times it is pointed out that there are comparisons with Holocaust denial or even AIDS denialism. Given the serious BLP implications of that, and that sources specifically seem to describe him as a sceptic, I think that if we err it should be on the conservative side of this one, and call him a sceptic. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Honestly, I don't care what word people use, if it's explained properly. It should be clear to readers (especially those who have no clue what's going on) what an unusual word - or more importantly, a usual word used in an unusual way - means. And I don't think it's good enough to say "it's hypertext, let people click through". I don't think that "skeptic", "contrarian" or "denialist" is actually much use to a reader without explanation. The most useful term I've seen is actually "naysayer" (see here), but it hasn't caught on. "Contrarian" does seem to be gaining currency as a neutral alternative. But, when it comes down to it, the words are synonyms. Discussing the best word is a useful editorial debate. But instead, we have people saying "no, they don't mean the same thing". A year ago I wasn't sure if they were the same or different. I took the time to find out. I wish other people would spend more time trying to see what the experts say (and by that I mean experts on the debate, the social scientists and historians of science) rather just repeating what the side they agree with says.
Of course, I know I'm going to regret posting a link to the Bud Ward guideline because most people aren't going to read it. No - they're going to Control-F, find a word that fits what they are looking for, and use it as "proof" that they were right all along. Or someone will start arguing about whether it's a reliable source or not. Or... Oh well. Why do I even bother. Guettarda (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Case in point, below. Good thing I didn't see that before I replied, or I would have been too disheartened to even bother. Guettarda (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
OK then we have a environmental organizations defining denialism and who is a denialist, so let's take the next logical step and use oil-industry sources to define who is an alarmist. The Heritage Foundation has lots of material to use [25]. Guettarda, since you are pushing for denialist, would you like to do the alarmist edits too? ATren (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
<shakes head> I give up trying to communicate with you ATren. Guettarda (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I really mean it, I saw that article a few days ago and the difference is remarkable. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the research and referencing to 100% secondary sources was quite interesting. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

ZjarriRrethues

I really resent the way this editor works behind the scenes, on IRC, to denounce his opponents. Maybe my edit summaries were not the most polite, but look at these [26] [27] [28]. That's the problem with this IRC business, you get his version only, and I cannot defend myself. Please try to be a little more even handed, and don't believe everything this guy tells you on IRC. On another note, if you deem I have not been civil enough lately, I will work on that. Thanks. Athenean (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, here [29] I think you are mistaken. I didn't make any accusations. Athenean (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


What is there to see in those difs? Btw it seems that I was right because users agreed with me [30]. Athenean if you want to comment on issues do so regarding peoples' edits not their personalities. Sulmues made a sourced edit but you reverted and said "only an Albanian nationalist would do that". If you think that an edit is disruptive say that but you don't have to resort to behaviors like the one in Stratioti. Btw you would be topic banned today if I didn't partly propose to reduce your restrictions so how can you say that I'm working behind the scenes to denounce my opponents? Please Athenean this isn't a battlegroudn so most of us don't consider other users as our opponents and I have reported many users some of which are Albanians, which according to your classification they should be my allies. Wikipedia is a very important project so whenever a user knowingly does something that violates our policies I always report that user.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I regret to say that Zjathues has completely lost the meaning of wikipedia with his wp:gaming the system campaign of minisformation, using 'hidden irc tactics' as a last resort.Alexikoua (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Alexikoua ease up on the personal accusations and the attribution of motives(last resort, hidden irc tactics?). --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Late to the party

Re User:Marknutley/Climate change exaggeration move prot: you're a bit late to the party: all the disputes were over, and the thing safe in MN's space. All those edits happened while it was in mainspace William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. However, disputes in this area have a tendency to flare up again after people have forgotten about them, so I thought it likely that someone would try to move it back to mainspace before discussing it. I took measures to ensure that it wouldn't happen unless there was consensus to do so. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a response to the discussion at WMC's talk page

Hi, I'd very much like a reply to this post[31] which was a response to your post.[32] Your talk page is on my watchlist (as is mine and WMC's so feel free to post where ever you like). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, both "sides" are wrong and have pursued their opinions far too aggressively. In this topic area, nobody is 100% innocent in the shenanigans that have taken place. Yes, the pro-mainstream editors have often behaved worse than the skeptic side, but there are no editors that can honestly say that they have never done anything wrong in pursuing their goals. We know that WMC's side has done things that are very wrong, but so have their opponents. That's what I was trying to say. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a fair and objective assessment. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thats one way of discovering that you've done the wrong thing. I also note TW's polarisation of this into "sides", which is unhelpful William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is very helpful. The recurring meme is that there are no sides, but there are. Call them cabals, cadres, factions, sides, or whatever you like. I don't see evidence of off-wiki collaboration, but it is abundantly clear that there are two groups of editors that loosely align along ideological positions. You, Polargeo, SBHB, Stephen Schulz, Guettarda and KDP are some of those commonly considered to be part of GWCab, while AQFK, mark nutley, Minor4th, GregJackP and a few others are generally part of the opposing one. The same disputes happen across multiple pages, but argued by the same people holding the same positions. Saying that there are no sides is just perpetuating the myth, and that is what is truly unhelpful. Even though there probably isn't a cabal in the traditional EEML-style form, there is behaviour that is very much characteristic of factionalism on both sides. Pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I just reported WMC for edit warring to the 3RR board [33]. I may file an enforcement action later. Unfortunately, in my experience, one way to tell that WMC has started a new day is that sourced information starts disappearing from CC articles that was added during the night UK time. Cla68 (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
TW: how amusing you categorisation is. I notice that you decline to put Cla into a "faction"; can you explain this oversight? And do please rectify it. I also note that while you're happy to label people as GWcab, even though you know people object to that, you can't bring yourself to label what you delicately refer to as "the opposing one". Are you deliberately trying to be offensive? As to Cla's report: note the absence of 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, Shaka, when the walls fell. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 would usually fall into the opposing one, yes. I just didn't have time to think up every single person that participates in these disputes. Also, several of those mentioned are IDCab veterans, so the name fit. I just couldn't come up with a clever name for the other one. "Skeptic Cabal" just doesn't have the same ring to it. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I just didn't have time to think up every single person that participates in these disputes - not really believable, given that Cla had been talking just above. I just couldn't come up with a clever name for the other one - so you think that GWcab *is* a clever name? See my previous comment re delierately being offensive William M. Connolley (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily clever, no, but it has been used several times before. I can't recall such a term for the other faction. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Because there really is no other faction, unless you want to call them the Believers in upholding the BLP policy faction, or Adherents to NPOV, or the Editors who try to edit in an ethical manner faction, but that includes most of Wikipedia editors, doesn't it? How about, The faction of editors who believe in following Wikipedia's policies and are willing and able to try to do something about the AGW faction who don't follow the policies? Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
"Several of those mentioned are IDCab veterans" - You do realise that this proposed principle seems to have the votes necessary to pass already, right? If you believe that you have evidence of wrong doing, please pursue it through dispute resolution. If, on the other hand, you simply want to perpetuate baseless smears...you should look into another venue. Why not just find some racist epithets to throw my way instead? They're no less offensive. Guettarda (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Guettarda, that is out of line and you know it. I know you are sensitive when people talk about the IDCab's abuses, which were some of the worst ever seen in the history of Wikipedia, but that definitely doesn't excuse you to talk to other editors this way. In fact, I would say that it puts the onus on you to act in a completely opposite fashion. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Guettarda, I am well aware of the "casting aspersions" proposed principle. If you look closely, you may notice that I am not actually accusing you of wrongdoing (in fact, during a private conversation I had with an arbitrator, I told them that I did not believe that you were a problem in this area). Rather, you are one of several editors that were historically considered to be members of IDCabal. I really don't think that anyone disputes your involvement in that area, nor who your allies there were. That is all my comment means, no more. I am not saying that you personally are responsible for any abuse, but the factionalist behaviour on both sides is a problem (just as it was for intelligent design). The WordsmithCommunicate 07:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Civility is in the eye of the beholder. If Guettarda is offended by what you wrote, then you offended him. You can chose to apologize and move on and try not to offend him in the future, or you can persist in insisting that you have the right to offend him with these words because you don't find them offensive. This is how conflicts get perpetuated. When someone explicitly states that they are offended by what you have written about them, it is absolutely best practice to apologize and try not to do it again. That's why I have a three-step process. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo

The fact that I am considered part of a GW cabal by you is shocking and appears to be a standard prejudgement based on my username and the fact that I tried to stand up to Lar and now also defend myself at the arbcase. I have just analyzed the 1870 edits to my top 100 edited articles [34]. My glaciological editing is not related to the AGW aspect at all and is mostly factual stuff about glaciers. My top five edited articles are not directly related to climate change. Therefore of these 85 % of the edits are not to CC articles and 15% (approx 280 edits) are to CC articles. These 280 include 30 edits to Anthropocene extinction event (a CC exageration article which I proposed for deletion and eventually got it redirected), 24 edits to Holocene extinction (again trying to remove poorly referenced GW alarmist stuff) and 42 edits to Effects of global warming (mainly trimming a very long article down and removing alarmist nonsense, stuff added mostly by the same alarmist editor who started the Anthropocene extinction event article). So what you are saying is that the remaining 184 article edits to CC articles make me part of an AGW cabal, when you haven't even really looked at what these edits were, a large number of these are wikignoming anyway and I have even improved articles on skeptics through minor edits. I have variously defended Marknutley, TheGoodLocust and even FellGleaming at CC RFE. I have never reported anyone to CC RFE unless you count myself. The pigeon holing of editors like myself by editors such as Lar and now you is really not called for and I am inclined to think about filing my first ever enforcement request for making dismissive attacks against me and my motives rather than looking properly at my editing. Polargeo (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true that you do frequently edit other topics. I wasn't looking at that. What I was looking at was the series of arguments taking place at CC probation board and the Arbcom pages. While you do sometimes defend other editors, in nearly all cases your arguments are similar to the others that I listed. I'm not suggesting that you are part of some off-wiki cabal, because I have no evidence for that and don't think it is the case, but anyone looking over those arguments would clearly see that you are one of several editors who nearly always express similar opinions and support each other. It is not a personal attack against you, merely an observation of how you typically argue in such disputes. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the CC probation is that I considered strongly that Lar was involved. I am passionate about admins being responsible and not behaving with bias. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any stance I may or may not have on the articles. However I was immediately labelled as a pro AGW editor particularly by editors such as ATren, Cla and Lar in attempts to discredit my motives and pigeon hole me ("on their side etc. etc."). Also if JohnWBarber had not popped up and started an overblown case against me at arbcom based solely on incivility towards Lar I would not be there either. Unfortunately people like yourself now see only three things A) My issues with Lar's responsibility as an admin, B) The defence of myself against JohnWBarber's accusations and C) My passionate attempts to get people to stop referring to others as groups of editors which is based around my keen sense that this is unjust and nothing more than a personal attack and an attempt to dismiss an editor (hence my issues with Collect and his statistical analysis of wikistalk results). On the Lar RfC/U I tried to parody this to try to get Lar to see how frustrating it is being unjustly labelled. Unfortunately you have now fallen into that trap of labelling people too, which is most regrettable and one of the sadest aspects of this case. My issues with FellGleaming stem from the fact that he is a most frustrating whitewasher of BLPs from a US rightwing POV, not anything to do with AGW specifically. He spends considerable time vigorously defending poor references so long as they make his favored person look good and then equally vigourasly slashes negative information with every wikilaw trick out there. I know that many people do this on both sides of the AGW fence but FellGleaming has been particularly blatant and extreme in his methods. I have equal sympathy for many of the edits of MarkNutley as I do those of editors whom you might call the AGW group. Polargeo (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible User:Sven70 babble

In a recent ANI you indicated you could read User:Sven70 shorthand babble, I think User:Ana.tala is a sock of his that just got blocked for vandalism. Can you read this? Its partially in Spanish [35] Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a vandalism-only account, but the speech pattern is entirely different from Sven. It appears to be Red X Unrelated. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


Athenean

Today his comments led me to start an AE [36]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Socks Sniffing

I did provide external links at the bottom of the article titled "Socks Sniffing" created by me. One can click on those links and get to know that this thing does exists and does not involve any research by me. And the content i had entered on the page is not very small and also the content of the page is very different from the page you have redirected it to. Kindly redo your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poddarrishabh (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Poddarishabh, I feel that your topic is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. We have certain criteria for submissions, including Notability, Verifiability, and not being Original Research. In short, wikipedia entries must be backed up by third-party sources that meet our stabdards of reliability. Your submissions would probably be better suited to Wipipedia, a specialist wiki. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem

What is the problem with you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poddarrishabh (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Proper venue for soliciting admin WP:NPA review?

As you are active in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, perhaps you could advise me of the appropriate venue for soliciting admin examination as to the propriety under WP:NPA for this edit by User:William M. Connolley?

As you will note in the edit history, I deleted the comment in question citing both WP:NPA and Casting aspersions but the comment was restored by WMC. Is the RfE venue still appropriate to address this issue or should it be brought to AN/I?

Thanks for any guidance you might offer. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No comment on whether that is an actual violation, but the RfE board is more likely to get a carefully considered response from editors and admins who are more familiar with the context than ANI. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved?

I'm sure I remember you admitting you've become involved. So I'm puzzled by your recent edits over at the RFE baord (even though you have got nearly the right answer in this case) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I became involved for the List of Scientists article due to a minor content dispute. If you remember, I pledged to recuse as an administrator from issues involving that page or the dispute as echoed on other pages. That pledge still stands. According to the GS rules, I do not have a current, direct, personal dispute with any of the participants of this current case. Depending on which definition of "involved" arbcom chooses, I may or may not be involved for all CC enforcement actions in the future, but that has not yet gone into effect. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is the diff you're looking for, by the way. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. But you must be aware that current, direct, personal dispute with any of the participants of this current case isn't the test being used - otherwise, Stephan would not have been considered "involved" for any of the cases against me. Yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
By which commonly used definition of "involved" would you hold me to? I've made perhaps a half dozen edits to the topic area, most of which are maintenance tagging. I participated in a small content disagreement, for which a compromise was reached within a few days. I hardly think that makes me involved throughout the entirety of Climate Change probation. I really don't think i'm unqualified to judge what is and is not a personal attack (in this instance, it was nowhere near NPA standards). The WordsmithCommunicate 18:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Funnily enough, people often make this kind of optimistic judgement about themselves. I haven't noticed you standing up for Stephan's uninvolved status, or pointing out Lar's obvious involvement. by the defn's being used in the Cl Ch area, being involved in one article makes you involved. I'm saying that now, although clearly I agree with you mostly in this one case, because I trust you not in the slightest William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep the judgements are made by those who have established themselves as the judges. There is little consistency and certain people are completely unable to judge themselves by the same standards to which they hold others. Polargeo (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Polargeo, I think you know that I always do my best to be fair when dealing with administrative matters. Clear and convincing evidence is far, far more likely to sway me than the names attached to the case. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Sanctions

Is it possible to have my restrictions struck? As i no longer edit CC articles i am sick of people pointing to that restriction and beating me about the head with it. mark nutley (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done the most I can do unilaterally; if you want more done then you'll need to appeal to the RfE board. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok mate thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith/Archive_4&oldid=1183755353"