This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your patient and considered, and hopefully continued, efforts in the AGW area. You are performing well above and beyond what could be expected from a volunteer editor, and have shown that faith in you is well placed. Well done, and keep it up! Verbal chat 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
I've fixed up your cot/cob: I think the small was getting in the way. When I looked, everything below was collapsed. Also, I moved the cob to include some comments that I *think* you wanted inside the collapse; apologies if I've erred in this (oops: I've now looked at the history: there has (and continues [1]) been some edit warring over the tag. OK, I'll not touch it again, up to you) William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You have done it again, fully protected Monkton, have you made a report to the probation board? Off2riorob ( talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
2/0, please unblock GoRight.
At the beginning of the year, whilst most of us were away from our computers, a small group of climate change editors set up a new forum and called it, "Climate Change Probation." The idea was proposed by a boy who appears to be in his early 20s, probably too young to have ever even had a job.
Whilst the intentions of some involved may have been good, there was no authorisation from the Wikipedia Foundation or ArbComm to do this, and since many of the editors involved in setting it up are POV pushers from the warmist camp, it is natural that skeptics are offended and will react to it.
(As for what would work, as far as fixing the corruption & poisonous atmosphere within the climate change pages, it would be mediation by parties known by both sides, advocates & skeptics, to be neutral. Neutral here would mean, an editor who has never shown any interest in the climate change debate, but he would likely suppose that the IPCC is probably right. Both sides would agree to the mediation. This much is common sense, but unfortunately, it seems, the warmist camp, with too much admin power taken too liberally, couldn't help themselves and have set themselves up as mediators in their own dispute with the skeptics. Honestly, this must look far, far worse to the general public than anything found in the Climategate letters. Whereas the IPCC is merely waning in credibility as a result of a number of scandals, Wikipedia appears corrupt to the core.)
I don't, personally, want anything to do with the climate change probation, given its illegitimacy, so I have largely just ignored it. Others have reacted differently, and that is understandable.
However, GoRight immediately objected, and, sure, he has reacted badly since. So it looks like he was provoked by the community with climate change probation in the first instance, and now is now banned less than 20 days later by the very same climate change probation, after reacting. This is, of course, what everyone expected probation to turn out to be: a weapon to be used against skeptics, rather than the real problem editors, POV pushers from either side.
I believe that you are, yourself, sincere in trying to fix the climate change pages, and so I appeal to you here: this block needs to be lifted. Alex Harvey ( talk) 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
@AH: I am aware of the problems surrounding the genesis and implementation of the climate change probation, but I think it has rather more support from the community and ArbCom than you indicate - [4], [5]. Disclosure: while I do not think I was the first to suggest such a solution, I argued for something similar to this probation in the first of the preceding links. That said, I did not invoke the discretionary sanctions in my blocking rationale. I am currently working with a few other editors to hash out a set of conditions under which they may continue to contribute to the project. Creative ideas that do not create an undue burden of enforcement are particularly welcome. @TS: Thank you for your perspective on your discussion, I will take it into consideration. I had read that exchange as considerably less productive than you describe. I think one of the problems with the battleground mentality is the stick (banning/blocking) is much more visible than the carrot (satisfaction at having contributed to the best encyclopedia possible). When editors start antagonizing each other, it seems that most people either get in on it or leave - what we need is some way to break the cycle, and catch and defuse it wherever it starts. - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I am troubled that the substance of GoRight's latest unblock request does not comfortably line up with his recent conduct. He appears to be continuing to do his very best to encourage, direct, and inflame disputes despite being confined to his talk page. Ten hours before the unblock request ( [6]) GoRight was endorsing the misuse of the climate change probation enforcement talk page by ZuluPapa5 as a platform for harrassment and namecalling directed at his perennial target, William M. Connolley: [7]. He is apparently watching quite closely, as he was the first to notice ZP5's violation of 3RR on that page and encouraged him to self-revert to keep his edit warring within the letter of 3RR: [8].
Encouraging vexatious misuse of dispute resolution pages and gaming of 3RR limits to enable edit warring is not, to my mind, "mak[ing] use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner", nor does it seem to "place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes. While a sufficiently twisted interpretation could perhaps let his 'guidance' of ZP5 fit around (behind, under) those terms, I would much prefer to see him understanding and abiding by the spirit of his propsed commitments before he is unblocked. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems like GoRight would like to make this simple and move on: User talk:GoRight#What are the terms under which you will allow me to continue editing?. Let me know how I can help? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
2overO, regarding a simple solution, this seems relevant to me, Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_and_sanctions_for_disruption regards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend strong, specific conditions for any unblock of GoRight; the framework that you've outlined forms a reasonable basis. While I am sure that GoRight offers his pledges in all earnestness, the fact remains that he has a demonstrated history of falling short of such commitments in the past. The last two (un)blocks in his block log are instructive:
Regrettably, since you've had to reblock GoRight for essentially the same problems, it would strike me as counterproductive to unblock without clear boundaries to guide his future contributions. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi .. I appreciate your are being pulled in many directions now a days (seem to show evidence for fairness and I know that takes time) ... when you have some time ... please review the Creative Proposal for GoRight's redemption on his talk page. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
[12] but this should also include prematurely collapsing threads as well. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
User_talk:GoRight is asking for a reply to his comment from 3 days ago. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
After watching just some of the comments going on about the climate articles in a couple of places I find it absolutely ridiculous all the way around. The behaviors are just not acceptable and the constant poking is just silly. You have to be exhausted already with all of it. May I suggest that maybe locking each and every article where the editors refuse to play nice? I mean, think about it, it give you and the administrators a break plus the other editors will have to find other places in the project to work, which would probably be a good thing. Two months of a lock down of the articles and the talk pages. After that time, see if everyone is ready to edit properly. I don't think it would hurt the project to shut down a half a dozen articles esp. since it would seem like nothing is getting done anyways. Thoughts? ;)-- CrohnieGal Talk 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Crohnie :). Just for that, I will do my best to make sure that the 35 °F weather my computer says we have outside right now does not make it down your way.
That is certainly an interesting idea, and it would get around one of the problems with locking articles - too often, people just move smoothly to the next dispute on the list, leaving the issues unresolved. - 2/0 ( cont.) 08:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello 2/0. Lar has asked a couple times [13] [14] - but interspersed within other comments and so perhaps unnoticed - that the second WMC thread be reopened. It addressed other issues with WMC's editing that weren't covered in the current edition. I wanted to second that here. Would you mind opening it yourself? Otherwise I'd be happy to file another request myself. Maybe I can draft a clearer / more focused version anyway...
He's still making problem edits. These are all from today:
Thanks!-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggest in any reopening, it should be clear than an incremental effect in the result of both threads for WP:CIVIL behavior is desired. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
[15] From goright :) mark nutley ( talk) 19:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought that considering the only very recent additional civility conditions applied to WMC in reference to demeaning other editors that this edit on his talkpage from yesterday is a violation of those conditions, he clearly refers to editors as the idiots. Could you let me know your opinion as regards this edit, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Especially in regard to these two parts of the recent closing report from yourself ... he (WMC)is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms and Please be careful when throwing around terms that might be interpreted to refer to your fellow volunteers - even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages.... I would have thought that whilst in discussion with SBH about the Skeptic editors on his talkpage that WMC referring to them as the idiots is a clear violation of the sections of the report that I have posted here. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering as I saw you editing, if you could please answer my question, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
These are all diffs since you closed the WMC case.
2/0, does this look like an attempt at compliance, or does it look like blatant defiance? When are you going to act on these? ATren ( talk) 12:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You may remember my old probation request regarding MN. ( Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive1#Marknutley). You may wish to review the comment by JzG - "I think at this point the outcome is, de facto, that marknutley is on notice to give more thought to is contributions and to be mindful of the potential to cause drama through ill-judged comments. I think we can probably leave it at that for now, if he does not heed this warning then it is likely we will find consensus for a topic ban of some duration." I suggest that this on your talk page is a direct violation of what MN was directly warned about. MN's "hunch" was pure speculation, backed by nothing more than his obvious dislike for WMC. Is there any reason whatsoever for MN to ever comment on WMC in the future? If you would prefer, I can file a fulsome probation request regarding MN - as you are almost certainly aware, I've been archiving his problmatic conduct for the better part of this month, or you can handle this as you would like. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
(undent) ATren, I believe you've been one of the editors unhappy about "septic", even when used undirected. Are you happy to be describing H's comments as "crap" - does this fit with the standards of civility that you appears to expect from others? William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I know you're active now, since you imposed your draconian 3-month article ban on Gavin Collins. There have been questions raised about your proposal of no action against WMC for far worse conduct. Please answer them straightaway. Unit Anode 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I object to your proposed close. I need to reply on the sanctions page, but this is difficult to do in the current circumstances as the attempt to clarify the rules of teh game remains as muddy as before.
I would like a clear statement as to whether off-wiki statements re usable as evidence or not (or under what circumstances), and I would like any of the disucussion pertaining to statements that are deemed unrefable removed.
At the moment that talk page discussion has no clear result, it is just a discussion.
William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Where do we stand on this. I object to your modified close, but (whilst not exactly enthralled) will live by your original (23:07, 25 January 2010). If that is OK with you, please close as such, and no-one needs to spend any more time or effort on this. If it isn't, then I'd like an opportunity to convince you otherwise, which will involve much tedious raking over of the evidence, which I'd rather not do William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> Here you specifically categorize a number of people, by name, as "septics." Please explain how we are misunderstanding you - I can't wait. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 04:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah well, despite talking you're not listening, it would seem. Consider all my responses above to have been struck out William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
WMC has removed [20] an entire section three times now with no consensus, i have asked him to stop on his talk page but i suspect he will ignore that. Would you please have a word as i do not really want to go back to enforcement. -- mark nutley ( talk) 19:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess that would be a no - despite being opposed on all sides, apparently that was not an acceptable compromise. The article is now on the pre edit war version (including the source that is either good for nothing except perhaps their own opinion on politics or solid gold). I am trying a soft-lock on that section - any further edits to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Code and documentation without consensus at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident will be considered edit warring. Please do not play at silly buggers with the definition of consensus. - 2/0 ( cont.) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
What happened? Well, I may as well give you a short play-by-play, as it's probably worth pointing out how this has looked to me:
A thread dealing with WMC's WP:Civil and WP:NPA violations was closed as no action without the violations being addressed. Requests for its being reopened were made by myself and Lar (along with this strange constituency that has congregated around those viewed as fighting the good fight against "overly dogmatic scienctists." The whole thing feels very surreal to me, like being a character in a Feyerabend novel). These requests weren't acknowledged and the thread wasn't reopened. WMC was then given sanctions for other reasons, whereupon he continued to break WP:Civil, WP:NPA, and topped it off with WP:V/WP:Disrupt (deleting a section twice without consensus). At this point it seemed appropriate, advised even, to request enforcement.
I'm sorry if the request came across wrong, but I don't think it was wrong-headed... It'd be great to get a response from you on this.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 11:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
A RFC/U has been created regarding the conduct of an editor you have had contact with, User:Michael H 34. It can be found here. Please comment if you feel it appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I was reading the request for enforcement on Climate Change articles page yesterday, and I remembered again why I try to stay out of those subject areas. What a battleground they are. I'm in half a mind to ban a dozen editors from the entire area; perhaps that would calm things down. But that's for another day. As an uninvolved administrator, I did not really agree with your conclusion here, and added my name to a list of people requesting further analysis. Do you think you could take a look at that soon? Thanks, NW ( Talk) 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
[21] Guess who it`s from and win a cigar :) -- mark nutley ( talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
...do you keep your sanity? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey 2/0. I think you may have misread the request. It was:
whereas what you have done is post a list of 67 diffs since the 28th of January with ~6 word descriptions tacked onto each. This wasn't what was asked for and it has issues of its own. Most editors aren't going to sift through that and I don't think the summaries you gave are descriptive enough to rely on if they don't. Could you please create another list to fulfill the request? or refactor the current one? In any case, I reponded at that section: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Request_for_analysis. Sorry. Also, everyone wants to know how you keep your sanity (see above).-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I might need you to RfA for me though. Cheers. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 03:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi 2/0, I'd like to ask that you reconsider your proposal/ruling for Gavin.collins. In my view it's quite clear his comment is no different from the kind of bluster we've just seen from WMC in response to his sanction. Whatever reasons there may be for treating editors differently, which we may or may not agree on, I do not see how the response to a sanction is something that should be treated under different standards. Similarly it seems to me the proposal that he leave behind the merge proposals is at least quite adequate, and that anything else would be somewhat punative and arbitrary, if it is just based on the idea that he can be somewhat difficult to deal with in a general sense. If not then I think a stronger response to WMC is called for, although as I said that is not something I would like to see either. I know you are trying to evaluate these cases neutrally, as I am, and I think you're doing much well. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The GC thing needs a resolution, or clarification as to whether it is resolved. Is your last post there final? What are we waiting for? William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2/0, this is my third request; my first two went unanswered.
I am requesting that you remove yourself from enforcement on the global warming probation, and I am further asking that you undo decisions that you've made on that page. I also think you should unblock GoRight, who has for some time been requesting your input for unblock conditions. While I believe GoRight has some issues to resolve, your indef block and lack of action thereafter is unacceptable given your lack of similar action against WMC, who has behaved worse than GoRight and yet he remains without sanction. Best to leave GoRight's status in the hands of other admins who are not as involved as you are.
I believe your enforcement has been biased towards one side of the debate, and while we all appreciate your efforts at remaining neutral, I now feel that there is enough evidence to demonstrate that bias unequivocally. This is in no way an accusation of bad faith; it is a friendly request to withdraw and thereby save the hassle of formal dispute resolution. ATren ( talk) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you all end this conversation now? Thank you. NW ( Talk) 20:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You might recall a discussion about 1RR at FWA Footballer of the Year last month. Take a look at the current edit history of that article. -- HighKing ( talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
so he can get the last word in discussions. I don't suppose that violates his incivility probation? TheGoodLocust ( talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Editors can remove what they want from their talk pages. I don't think his restriction changes that. ATren ( talk) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> I personally think it is clear that he has already violated the terms of his probation due to his other actions and clearly uncivil statements, but unfortunately there is a "subjective" factor to those comments, which apparently translates into inaction. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 03:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Given that the purpose of User talk:William M. Connolley is to communicate with that user and that any removed posts remain in the archive, I do not think that such removals violate the intention of the prohibition. I have asked the other two administrators who commented there if they disagree with this view or would object to an amendment to the formal wording indicating such. Thank you for bringing this up, as the matter should have been considered before the close was implemented. - 2/0 ( cont.) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> I was thinking more along the lines of this this this and this (all over the last day). TheGoodLocust ( talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Um, things went off into the weeds on my talk too, a bit anyway. I just popped by here to say I think you should go ahead and make the clarification you were suggesting, if you hadn't already, to make it clear that this didn't apply to WMC's own talk page. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the discussion. - 2/0 ( cont.) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
[23] @ global warming controversy, please take a look, you have guys removing an entire section on the basis they do not like one of the refs, why they are unable to remove a ref and feel the need to remove an antire section of good faith contributions is beyond me. -- mark nutley ( talk) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there 2over0, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:2over0. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC I think that one's baked. All the involved admins seem to have come to rest, and it's closable with the sanction wording you drafted. Do you want to do the honors?
Re: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#142.68.95.166.2C_142.68.92.131 I have your CU results for you, what to do next? I dunno. Try the rangeblock, maybe, but write a really good log entry so that any anons know what to do... as per usual. Up to you. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
DuKu ( talk · contribs) seems to have taken your restriction on me as license to break 3RR on ExxonMobil. Perhaps you might care to remind him, forcefully, of the rules, and spare me the trouble of putting in a 3RR report (it would be too much to expect Lar to bother, I realise) William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you please ask WMC to change his post here [24] I did ask him but all he did was fix a typo :( There is no need for the sarcastic digs at wattsupwiththat or Joe d'Aleo. Thanks -- mark nutley ( talk) 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
Could you take a look at the content of the dispute at Great Filter? Robin Hanson, the prof who developed this hypothesis, has written quite a few articles about the future of technology and humanity, is a member of the Future of Humanity Institute, and so on. This makes him a futurist, by definition, and is very well supported by a large number and variety of reliable sources. So we should call him a futurist, in the view of 2 of the 3 editors working on this article. The remaining editor does not like this at all, and insists it is OR, or interpretation, etc. This seems very odd to me, since WP:OR explicitly states
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly."
To the two of us, this seems exactly what we are doing, and your opinion on this issue would be most helpful.
Also, you locked the article in the anti-concensus state, in so far as 2 vs 1 can be described as concensus. This induces a practical problem, as the remaining editor is now perfectly happy with the locked state, has no reason to try to resolve this issue, and has indeed stopped discussing. Two things might help here - perhaps after half a week or so, swap it to the concensus state, or better yet, look at the arguments in addition to the reverts - perhaps you could add your voice on the side of reason, as you see it.
Thanks, LouScheffer ( talk) 01:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have made a proposal for unblocking this user on his talk page. Please read it and give your feedback. Thanks. Trusilver 09:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey 2/0, I think perhaps the edit history made it seem as though there was a large edit war when there wasn't. Oren0 reinserted the old "Code and documentation" section that had resulted from consensus built in the "Long/Short/Very Short" section on the talk, which was then reverted by Scjessey for having broken refs (Scjessey didn't speak against the addition itself), at which point I fixed the refs myself and put it back. That was all well and good (though I suppose it could have seemed ominous). But then WMC removed the section, for the third time and for his old reasons (over and against WP:V). The relevant diffs can be found here:
Would you consider removing the content lock in place of sanctions on WMC for this disruptive behavior? -- Heyitspeter ( talk) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how close you've been following this but the recent flair-up was instigated by this massive re-write which, while done in a good-faith attempt to improve the article, was done without discussion much less consensus. You've now locked in this version thereby rewarding bad behavior and removing some sections about which hard fought consensus had been achieved. Prior to the re-write, with the exception of the drive-bys, we were working quite collaboratively and making progress. I think the fair thing to do would be to rv to the original and see if we can't continue to make progress from there. JPatterson ( talk) 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you consider taking this off early? I'd like to add a bunch of images, and replce the emails section with the summary that has reasonable acclaim (and no dissent), and input from both "sides." It's a shame that some editors don't get it - perhaps you should ban them from the article? All of them. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It is inappropriate for you to continue to abuse your tools to go after one side of the AGW dispute and to promote a particular version of article content. Your full protection after William's edit warring to remove a section is another example of your inappropriate involvement.
Please stop abusing your position of trust within this community to promote a particular point of view that you happen to agree with. This is not appropriate behavior. I understand that you may have strong opinions on the issue of Global Warming, but that's all the more reason you need to allow uninvolved admins to deal with the situation. Thank you. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I would be grateful if you would run your eye over Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#Initial conclusions, regarding a dispute over a section in the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. Can you see if there is any fault in my logic, and its application, or a misrepresentation of other editors actions or my understanding of policy. Although I would be grateful if you would note if you concur with my findings, at that page, I would understand if you didn't. I would also be grateful if you would note any dissent or disquiet in regard to my comments, again at that page. Cheers, LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Another unreleated issue on the same page. In justifying WMC's removal of the section you wrote "As most of the material remained, however, I read this as a minor issue of presentation, not a fundamental one of edit warring.". Huh? He removed the entire section. Could you clarify your meaning? JPatterson ( talk) 16:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As usual, the thread is spiralling off into irrelevance. But I hope you've noticed I've counted and found that "out" is in a majority. While it doesn't prove consensus to remove, it destroys the notion that there was consensus to keep William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to point out that this edit broke the content restriction. I've asked the editor to self-revert ( here), but figure I should let you know in case of resistance as you're the protecting admin.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 23:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Now that Dave S. has split the article from which I am banned, I suppose one could argue that I am free to edit in the fork. I've decided not to make such an argument and sit out the rest of my ban. Clarification on this though might be appropriate in case it should come up in the future on a longer ban. Regards. JPatterson ( talk) 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2^0, I have replied to your comment. If you'd like to institute a username policy on when and in which cases short forms and abbreviations are allowable, the place do that is the Village Pump.
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point or attempt to engage in arbitrary enforcement actions to push your point of view by targeting editors you disagree with on content issues. You also need to refrain from admin involvement on the AGW articles because of your repeated refusal to enforce civility and edit warring policies violations on William, while going after other editors on dubious, arbitrary and nebulous assertions per your personal whims. That's not how things are done here and your abusive behavior has been very disruptive. If you have contructive input on how the AGW content can be improved, please offer up your ideas at the appropriate venues. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added the probation notice to Talk:Greenhouse effect. Seems it was missed and you have warned Chicco3 regarding their edits there. Vsmith ( talk) 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A few of us have started a proposal to try and resolves the never ending stream of rename requests for Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and are working behind the scenes to gather support for it here. TGL had been mentioned by ChrisO as someone who might be useful to have on board with the proposal. Given his recent topic ban would you be willing to make an exception to allow him to simply endorse this proposal (if he is so inclined)? Every show of faith in the proposal will help to bring others on board. Thanks for your consideration. -- GoRight ( talk) 15:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see this discussion regarding the old page move of lanthanide to lanthanoid. Jdrewitt ( talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you take a quick look at this WP:Coatrack. I've outlined numerous BLP issues here. After getting no responses, I made the edits to remove the objectionable material in a series of edits starting here. (I did it in a series so each rationale could be summarized). The changes were reverted in mass without discussion here. Requested self-revert on users talk page. Non-responsive so I reverted and filled a BLP notice here. My changes we're reverted again here, again with no attempt to justify the sourcing as required by WP:BLP. I've tagged the article {BLP dispute}, and add the blp warning template to the users talk page.
The issue with sourcing in this article should be completely non-controversial. It is using primary sourced data to draw conclusions and strings multiple sources together to synthesize points not made explicitly in any. References to wikilinks, blogs and non-existing web pages abound. Not sure where to go from here. Thanks. JPatterson ( talk) 17:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
New subject: Is this cool? Also, these ( [28] [29]) were not helpful. JPatterson ( talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
[30] calls an editor malicious.
[31] Calls the same editor malicious again.
[32] Edits my post (i forgot to sign) in contravention of earlier enforcement action. And of course saying he does not care about his current enforcement.
Please give him a topic ban or should i do a request for enforcement? -- mark nutley ( talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And calls an editor an "old fruit" again. *sigh*-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And another: "You snarking above seems all-too-typical of your style." ATren ( talk) 00:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow - why don't you-all find something productive to do. This looks like primary school tattle-tale time. The pack is on the scent. Seriously the noticeboard is that-away... Vsmith ( talk) 03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't expect this admin to do anything. He's a true believer in settled science. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
"Settled science" is anti-science. Settled science is religion. It is the polar opposite of scholarship and critical thinking. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The link you dropped on my tp was directed to the wrong target which led me to believe it was my comment re AGF that you were taking me to task for. See my tp for more. JPatterson ( talk) 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your criticism lacked focus. Provide appropriate diffs. Nightmote ( talk) 02:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
When I see a line from a news article that is phrased so perfectly and succinctly that I can't figure out how to say it any better, I'll often attribute the information and include it with only a small modification. According to the essay you showed me, it's something I shouldn't do. So, I appreciate you pointing that out to me. One issue associated with that edit is an issue that I've found common with several of the regulars on the AGW articles, and that's that they'll often revert without making any attempt to correct or improve the edits that they disapprove of. The edits in that article, and some edits I did over at Lawrence Solomon, in which a couple of account names you are probably familiar with reverted my edits then later admitted that they could only dispute part of what I had added, is illustrative of what I'm talking about. I don't know if it's a Wikipedia requirement that editors operate in a collaborative and helpful manner, but after experiencing congenial collaboration and cooperation in the MILHIST project, it's disappointing to see that behavior dismissed so out-of-hand on other subjects, most glaringly in many science-related articles. Cla68 ( talk) 03:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I think Guettarda should be admonished for his tone in this discussion. [34] This is pure vitriol from start to finish. The discussion starts with an initial source, stating, "The thieves’ eureka moment came when they found messages from Jones, the unit’s director, and others apparently encouraging climate scientists to refuse freedom of information (FoI) requests from known climate sceptics, and even to destroy data rather than surrender them to anyone they feared might misuse them." Cla68 initially summarized this as "Critics have charged that the emails showed that Jones appeared to direct his team to refuse to provide data for Freedom of information (FOI) requests." Guettarda reverted with the following: "'Apparently encouraging [people]' is clearly not the same as 'direct[ing people]'. In addition, 'direct[ing] his team' implies that he was using his position as unit leader to direct his staff to do wrong. Not supported by the source. Quite a smear to add to a BLP." In simpler terms, the source says Jones "apparently encourag[ed]" not that he "apparently directed." Ok, so Cla68 adjusted it to "appeared to encourage." [35] Now Guettarda says the problem is the reference to "critics," which he calls "horrible form," and a "misrepresentation of the source" since the author discusses "thieves" rather than "critics." Move the goal posts, fine, although this is incorrect; the article directly says the emails "apparently" show this, so if anything Cla68 has only understated the author's claim. Finally Cla68 brings another source, which states, "In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007." Cla68 posts this on the talk page and says, "Ok, I'll make it say exactly what it says here." [36] He changes the text to something nearly identical, with a direct attribution in the text. Now Guettarda responds that Cla68 has gone "from bad to worse," has now comitted a "copyvio," and comments that, "as bad as the last bit, this has me shocked."
Nearly every one of Guettarda's comments in this discussion is needlessly uncivil, while several such as this are direct personal attacks. There is no evidence of any miconduct whatsoever on Cla68's part. There is no excuse for it; this is abusive behavior that has gone on too long. Mackan79 ( talk) 23:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
New section as requested – a possible way of improving the editing environment would be to encourage newcomers to the topic to follow policies requiring due weight to the scientific majority view, and policies promoting a collegial editing environment, as disussed here. The importance of civility, cooperation, and collaboration is all to easily undermined by civil POV pushing, and while I appreciate the efforts to impose sanctions, there have been evident difficulties with the Requests for enforcement page becoming another venue for such arguments. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi 2^0. In order to assist me in gathering diffs of your abusive enforcement actions and your disruptive activity in the AGW articles, could you please provide me with a list of enforcement actions you've taken and the relevant editor names? Have you done a single block or ban on any of the disruptive propagandists who are trying to cleanse the encyclopedia of scientific information such as content and links related to episodes of global warming that occured before the 20th century? Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You all get one and only one clue, and this is it: WP:RFC/U. -- TS 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
talkback|nsaa|Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement}}
Hi, i moved a wip into main space [37] However if i delete it from my sandbox the mainspace page also gets removed? How can i clear my sandbox and not delete the article? mark nutley ( talk) 14:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You recently blocked the above for edit waring over the use of BI. More or less immediately on his return he has started again against a clear talk page consensus on a minor article Five Peaks Challenge. There has been a 1RR enforcement in place on the use of the BI term which also applies. He appears to be a largely single purpose account. Any chance you could have a look? -- Snowded TALK 22:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
i have a question about somone removing my addition to american dream,i recently added a referance to a book by john steinbeck about it being one of the key themes of his book and showing the futility of it, somone keeps removing it at first with no reason, then saying that i have no source, where i have several, and now saying that it is vandalism. Now i believe that putting a referance to this book can be useful to many people who are researching american dream and possible literature that could be of use. Is this either vandalism on my part, or the user that is constantly deleting my post. Thanks in advance. ( 86.180.90.107 ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
"The American Dream is also a main theme in the book by John Steinbeck, "Of Mice and Men". The two friends George and Lennie dream of their own piece of land with a ranch, so they can "live offa the fatta the lan'" and just enjoy a better life. But the symbolism shows this is futile due to the fact that it will never happen, and that they end up shooting lenny in the back of the head, like candys' dog. This shows that not everyone can achive the american dream, thus proving by contradiction it is not possible."
would the use of a referance to many essays that have been written about this subject prove to you that it has a legitimate reason to be added there? Also by the term reference, i ment to one of the key themes of the book, not to a source if you miss understood what i said i am sorry. Also to the fact of no research i would like you to have a look at this clearly stating from a reliable source, the gardian newspaper, that the book has the theme of the faliure of the american dream
{{
talkback|nsaa|wp:notforum}}
Nsaa (
talk) 11:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm outta the dog now, right? JPatterson ( talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi 2over0, there has been discussion at the ani thread you opened and I (after reviewing evidence and case histories) have suggested some sanctions. Just thought you'd like to know-- Cailil talk 10:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
[38] I do not think i am, could you let me know if i am breaching my parole and if so i`ll self revert. thanks mark nutley ( talk) 15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
[39] Thats like 3 days of talk? mark nutley ( talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello 2over0, I am Eve Higgs, the employee in charge of our (GridPoint) Website, www.gridpoint.com. I created a page for our CEO and his various activities to benefit the future of clean energy. I was instructed to utilize his bio *as seen on our Website,* but with a few edits. There is no copyright infringement; your notice states that the copyright infringement is for our Management page. But that's the point: it's OUR management page, and I was instructed to use the bio as it appears on the site. Please advise on what other proof you need in order to replace the page ASAP. Thank you. One other question: is it not policy to email the author before deleting a page? Please reply to my email address below. Thank you, Ehiggs ( talk) 18:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I draw your attention to [40]. Is this considered acceptable? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Not requesting or expecting action on this, but: User_talk:Hipocrite#Remove_section.3F. Perhaps you could collapse the section in question seeing as how it isn't going to be removed. I'm not sure how.- Heyitspeter ( talk) 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I wondered how to phrase that result, but your block of the submitter captured the issue well. Now I guess you will be raked over the coals by the blockee (complete with legal jargon) and threatened with Arbcom, but c'est la vie. I think he actually does make a contribution here, but sometimes the specific behavior can be very annoying. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi 2over0, I noticed you blocked User:THF for a significant period, but I can't quite make out why he was blocked. He appears to have been in a conflict with a couple of other editors, but I'm not really seeing any blockable offenses; certainly nothing worse than what his opponents did/wrote. One of them appears to have actually violated 3RR, but not been blocked. I think it would be best to unblock THF at this point, but I wanted to raise the issue with you first. Cheers! Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. His opponents have engaged in edit warring, uncivil language, and assuming bad faith, yet the only action taken against them was that one of them (a long-time user) was warned for violating 3RR.-- Drrll ( talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Like Drrll, I am an involved party, but I thought I should register my objection to unblocking. The conflicts haven't been pretty, and there's plenty of blame to go around, but in the end the conflicts begin with THF's inability to play well with others. Whatever mistakes any other parties may have made do not excuse THF's constant torrent of accusations, often in the midst of what should be the most simple and clear cut discussions. For those who think he should be unblocked, I have two questions. 1) Why do you feel THF's behavior is appropriate for a Wikipedia editor? 2) What would you do or have us do to to prevent conflict with such a hostile editor? Gamaliel ( talk) 17:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
For my own reference, can you identify the tendentious edits you think I made? It's certainly never my intent to be tendentious. I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#A_request_for_consistent_application_of_NPOV_and_BLP. THF ( talk) 05:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at these [41], [42] ... they seem to focused on editors and less on sources or content. Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 03:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking specifically how you would deal with a situation like this. You've "reported" William for violating a standard that you don't seem to hold yourself to. Are you saying that the behavior is acceptable in your case, but unacceptable in William's, because he is an obstructive "bad apple" and you are not? I don't want to put words in your mouth, nor to pick on you in particular, but this is a recurring theme in this dispute and I would like to understand the thought process. MastCell Talk 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your patient and considered, and hopefully continued, efforts in the AGW area. You are performing well above and beyond what could be expected from a volunteer editor, and have shown that faith in you is well placed. Well done, and keep it up! Verbal chat 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
I've fixed up your cot/cob: I think the small was getting in the way. When I looked, everything below was collapsed. Also, I moved the cob to include some comments that I *think* you wanted inside the collapse; apologies if I've erred in this (oops: I've now looked at the history: there has (and continues [1]) been some edit warring over the tag. OK, I'll not touch it again, up to you) William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You have done it again, fully protected Monkton, have you made a report to the probation board? Off2riorob ( talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
2/0, please unblock GoRight.
At the beginning of the year, whilst most of us were away from our computers, a small group of climate change editors set up a new forum and called it, "Climate Change Probation." The idea was proposed by a boy who appears to be in his early 20s, probably too young to have ever even had a job.
Whilst the intentions of some involved may have been good, there was no authorisation from the Wikipedia Foundation or ArbComm to do this, and since many of the editors involved in setting it up are POV pushers from the warmist camp, it is natural that skeptics are offended and will react to it.
(As for what would work, as far as fixing the corruption & poisonous atmosphere within the climate change pages, it would be mediation by parties known by both sides, advocates & skeptics, to be neutral. Neutral here would mean, an editor who has never shown any interest in the climate change debate, but he would likely suppose that the IPCC is probably right. Both sides would agree to the mediation. This much is common sense, but unfortunately, it seems, the warmist camp, with too much admin power taken too liberally, couldn't help themselves and have set themselves up as mediators in their own dispute with the skeptics. Honestly, this must look far, far worse to the general public than anything found in the Climategate letters. Whereas the IPCC is merely waning in credibility as a result of a number of scandals, Wikipedia appears corrupt to the core.)
I don't, personally, want anything to do with the climate change probation, given its illegitimacy, so I have largely just ignored it. Others have reacted differently, and that is understandable.
However, GoRight immediately objected, and, sure, he has reacted badly since. So it looks like he was provoked by the community with climate change probation in the first instance, and now is now banned less than 20 days later by the very same climate change probation, after reacting. This is, of course, what everyone expected probation to turn out to be: a weapon to be used against skeptics, rather than the real problem editors, POV pushers from either side.
I believe that you are, yourself, sincere in trying to fix the climate change pages, and so I appeal to you here: this block needs to be lifted. Alex Harvey ( talk) 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
@AH: I am aware of the problems surrounding the genesis and implementation of the climate change probation, but I think it has rather more support from the community and ArbCom than you indicate - [4], [5]. Disclosure: while I do not think I was the first to suggest such a solution, I argued for something similar to this probation in the first of the preceding links. That said, I did not invoke the discretionary sanctions in my blocking rationale. I am currently working with a few other editors to hash out a set of conditions under which they may continue to contribute to the project. Creative ideas that do not create an undue burden of enforcement are particularly welcome. @TS: Thank you for your perspective on your discussion, I will take it into consideration. I had read that exchange as considerably less productive than you describe. I think one of the problems with the battleground mentality is the stick (banning/blocking) is much more visible than the carrot (satisfaction at having contributed to the best encyclopedia possible). When editors start antagonizing each other, it seems that most people either get in on it or leave - what we need is some way to break the cycle, and catch and defuse it wherever it starts. - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I am troubled that the substance of GoRight's latest unblock request does not comfortably line up with his recent conduct. He appears to be continuing to do his very best to encourage, direct, and inflame disputes despite being confined to his talk page. Ten hours before the unblock request ( [6]) GoRight was endorsing the misuse of the climate change probation enforcement talk page by ZuluPapa5 as a platform for harrassment and namecalling directed at his perennial target, William M. Connolley: [7]. He is apparently watching quite closely, as he was the first to notice ZP5's violation of 3RR on that page and encouraged him to self-revert to keep his edit warring within the letter of 3RR: [8].
Encouraging vexatious misuse of dispute resolution pages and gaming of 3RR limits to enable edit warring is not, to my mind, "mak[ing] use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner", nor does it seem to "place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes. While a sufficiently twisted interpretation could perhaps let his 'guidance' of ZP5 fit around (behind, under) those terms, I would much prefer to see him understanding and abiding by the spirit of his propsed commitments before he is unblocked. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems like GoRight would like to make this simple and move on: User talk:GoRight#What are the terms under which you will allow me to continue editing?. Let me know how I can help? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
2overO, regarding a simple solution, this seems relevant to me, Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_and_sanctions_for_disruption regards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend strong, specific conditions for any unblock of GoRight; the framework that you've outlined forms a reasonable basis. While I am sure that GoRight offers his pledges in all earnestness, the fact remains that he has a demonstrated history of falling short of such commitments in the past. The last two (un)blocks in his block log are instructive:
Regrettably, since you've had to reblock GoRight for essentially the same problems, it would strike me as counterproductive to unblock without clear boundaries to guide his future contributions. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi .. I appreciate your are being pulled in many directions now a days (seem to show evidence for fairness and I know that takes time) ... when you have some time ... please review the Creative Proposal for GoRight's redemption on his talk page. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
[12] but this should also include prematurely collapsing threads as well. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
User_talk:GoRight is asking for a reply to his comment from 3 days ago. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
After watching just some of the comments going on about the climate articles in a couple of places I find it absolutely ridiculous all the way around. The behaviors are just not acceptable and the constant poking is just silly. You have to be exhausted already with all of it. May I suggest that maybe locking each and every article where the editors refuse to play nice? I mean, think about it, it give you and the administrators a break plus the other editors will have to find other places in the project to work, which would probably be a good thing. Two months of a lock down of the articles and the talk pages. After that time, see if everyone is ready to edit properly. I don't think it would hurt the project to shut down a half a dozen articles esp. since it would seem like nothing is getting done anyways. Thoughts? ;)-- CrohnieGal Talk 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Crohnie :). Just for that, I will do my best to make sure that the 35 °F weather my computer says we have outside right now does not make it down your way.
That is certainly an interesting idea, and it would get around one of the problems with locking articles - too often, people just move smoothly to the next dispute on the list, leaving the issues unresolved. - 2/0 ( cont.) 08:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello 2/0. Lar has asked a couple times [13] [14] - but interspersed within other comments and so perhaps unnoticed - that the second WMC thread be reopened. It addressed other issues with WMC's editing that weren't covered in the current edition. I wanted to second that here. Would you mind opening it yourself? Otherwise I'd be happy to file another request myself. Maybe I can draft a clearer / more focused version anyway...
He's still making problem edits. These are all from today:
Thanks!-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggest in any reopening, it should be clear than an incremental effect in the result of both threads for WP:CIVIL behavior is desired. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
[15] From goright :) mark nutley ( talk) 19:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought that considering the only very recent additional civility conditions applied to WMC in reference to demeaning other editors that this edit on his talkpage from yesterday is a violation of those conditions, he clearly refers to editors as the idiots. Could you let me know your opinion as regards this edit, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Especially in regard to these two parts of the recent closing report from yourself ... he (WMC)is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms and Please be careful when throwing around terms that might be interpreted to refer to your fellow volunteers - even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages.... I would have thought that whilst in discussion with SBH about the Skeptic editors on his talkpage that WMC referring to them as the idiots is a clear violation of the sections of the report that I have posted here. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering as I saw you editing, if you could please answer my question, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
These are all diffs since you closed the WMC case.
2/0, does this look like an attempt at compliance, or does it look like blatant defiance? When are you going to act on these? ATren ( talk) 12:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You may remember my old probation request regarding MN. ( Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive1#Marknutley). You may wish to review the comment by JzG - "I think at this point the outcome is, de facto, that marknutley is on notice to give more thought to is contributions and to be mindful of the potential to cause drama through ill-judged comments. I think we can probably leave it at that for now, if he does not heed this warning then it is likely we will find consensus for a topic ban of some duration." I suggest that this on your talk page is a direct violation of what MN was directly warned about. MN's "hunch" was pure speculation, backed by nothing more than his obvious dislike for WMC. Is there any reason whatsoever for MN to ever comment on WMC in the future? If you would prefer, I can file a fulsome probation request regarding MN - as you are almost certainly aware, I've been archiving his problmatic conduct for the better part of this month, or you can handle this as you would like. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
(undent) ATren, I believe you've been one of the editors unhappy about "septic", even when used undirected. Are you happy to be describing H's comments as "crap" - does this fit with the standards of civility that you appears to expect from others? William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I know you're active now, since you imposed your draconian 3-month article ban on Gavin Collins. There have been questions raised about your proposal of no action against WMC for far worse conduct. Please answer them straightaway. Unit Anode 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I object to your proposed close. I need to reply on the sanctions page, but this is difficult to do in the current circumstances as the attempt to clarify the rules of teh game remains as muddy as before.
I would like a clear statement as to whether off-wiki statements re usable as evidence or not (or under what circumstances), and I would like any of the disucussion pertaining to statements that are deemed unrefable removed.
At the moment that talk page discussion has no clear result, it is just a discussion.
William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Where do we stand on this. I object to your modified close, but (whilst not exactly enthralled) will live by your original (23:07, 25 January 2010). If that is OK with you, please close as such, and no-one needs to spend any more time or effort on this. If it isn't, then I'd like an opportunity to convince you otherwise, which will involve much tedious raking over of the evidence, which I'd rather not do William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> Here you specifically categorize a number of people, by name, as "septics." Please explain how we are misunderstanding you - I can't wait. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 04:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah well, despite talking you're not listening, it would seem. Consider all my responses above to have been struck out William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
WMC has removed [20] an entire section three times now with no consensus, i have asked him to stop on his talk page but i suspect he will ignore that. Would you please have a word as i do not really want to go back to enforcement. -- mark nutley ( talk) 19:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess that would be a no - despite being opposed on all sides, apparently that was not an acceptable compromise. The article is now on the pre edit war version (including the source that is either good for nothing except perhaps their own opinion on politics or solid gold). I am trying a soft-lock on that section - any further edits to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Code and documentation without consensus at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident will be considered edit warring. Please do not play at silly buggers with the definition of consensus. - 2/0 ( cont.) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
What happened? Well, I may as well give you a short play-by-play, as it's probably worth pointing out how this has looked to me:
A thread dealing with WMC's WP:Civil and WP:NPA violations was closed as no action without the violations being addressed. Requests for its being reopened were made by myself and Lar (along with this strange constituency that has congregated around those viewed as fighting the good fight against "overly dogmatic scienctists." The whole thing feels very surreal to me, like being a character in a Feyerabend novel). These requests weren't acknowledged and the thread wasn't reopened. WMC was then given sanctions for other reasons, whereupon he continued to break WP:Civil, WP:NPA, and topped it off with WP:V/WP:Disrupt (deleting a section twice without consensus). At this point it seemed appropriate, advised even, to request enforcement.
I'm sorry if the request came across wrong, but I don't think it was wrong-headed... It'd be great to get a response from you on this.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 11:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
A RFC/U has been created regarding the conduct of an editor you have had contact with, User:Michael H 34. It can be found here. Please comment if you feel it appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I was reading the request for enforcement on Climate Change articles page yesterday, and I remembered again why I try to stay out of those subject areas. What a battleground they are. I'm in half a mind to ban a dozen editors from the entire area; perhaps that would calm things down. But that's for another day. As an uninvolved administrator, I did not really agree with your conclusion here, and added my name to a list of people requesting further analysis. Do you think you could take a look at that soon? Thanks, NW ( Talk) 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
[21] Guess who it`s from and win a cigar :) -- mark nutley ( talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
...do you keep your sanity? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey 2/0. I think you may have misread the request. It was:
whereas what you have done is post a list of 67 diffs since the 28th of January with ~6 word descriptions tacked onto each. This wasn't what was asked for and it has issues of its own. Most editors aren't going to sift through that and I don't think the summaries you gave are descriptive enough to rely on if they don't. Could you please create another list to fulfill the request? or refactor the current one? In any case, I reponded at that section: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Request_for_analysis. Sorry. Also, everyone wants to know how you keep your sanity (see above).-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I might need you to RfA for me though. Cheers. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 03:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi 2/0, I'd like to ask that you reconsider your proposal/ruling for Gavin.collins. In my view it's quite clear his comment is no different from the kind of bluster we've just seen from WMC in response to his sanction. Whatever reasons there may be for treating editors differently, which we may or may not agree on, I do not see how the response to a sanction is something that should be treated under different standards. Similarly it seems to me the proposal that he leave behind the merge proposals is at least quite adequate, and that anything else would be somewhat punative and arbitrary, if it is just based on the idea that he can be somewhat difficult to deal with in a general sense. If not then I think a stronger response to WMC is called for, although as I said that is not something I would like to see either. I know you are trying to evaluate these cases neutrally, as I am, and I think you're doing much well. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The GC thing needs a resolution, or clarification as to whether it is resolved. Is your last post there final? What are we waiting for? William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2/0, this is my third request; my first two went unanswered.
I am requesting that you remove yourself from enforcement on the global warming probation, and I am further asking that you undo decisions that you've made on that page. I also think you should unblock GoRight, who has for some time been requesting your input for unblock conditions. While I believe GoRight has some issues to resolve, your indef block and lack of action thereafter is unacceptable given your lack of similar action against WMC, who has behaved worse than GoRight and yet he remains without sanction. Best to leave GoRight's status in the hands of other admins who are not as involved as you are.
I believe your enforcement has been biased towards one side of the debate, and while we all appreciate your efforts at remaining neutral, I now feel that there is enough evidence to demonstrate that bias unequivocally. This is in no way an accusation of bad faith; it is a friendly request to withdraw and thereby save the hassle of formal dispute resolution. ATren ( talk) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you all end this conversation now? Thank you. NW ( Talk) 20:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You might recall a discussion about 1RR at FWA Footballer of the Year last month. Take a look at the current edit history of that article. -- HighKing ( talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
so he can get the last word in discussions. I don't suppose that violates his incivility probation? TheGoodLocust ( talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Editors can remove what they want from their talk pages. I don't think his restriction changes that. ATren ( talk) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> I personally think it is clear that he has already violated the terms of his probation due to his other actions and clearly uncivil statements, but unfortunately there is a "subjective" factor to those comments, which apparently translates into inaction. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 03:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Given that the purpose of User talk:William M. Connolley is to communicate with that user and that any removed posts remain in the archive, I do not think that such removals violate the intention of the prohibition. I have asked the other two administrators who commented there if they disagree with this view or would object to an amendment to the formal wording indicating such. Thank you for bringing this up, as the matter should have been considered before the close was implemented. - 2/0 ( cont.) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> I was thinking more along the lines of this this this and this (all over the last day). TheGoodLocust ( talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Um, things went off into the weeds on my talk too, a bit anyway. I just popped by here to say I think you should go ahead and make the clarification you were suggesting, if you hadn't already, to make it clear that this didn't apply to WMC's own talk page. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the discussion. - 2/0 ( cont.) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
[23] @ global warming controversy, please take a look, you have guys removing an entire section on the basis they do not like one of the refs, why they are unable to remove a ref and feel the need to remove an antire section of good faith contributions is beyond me. -- mark nutley ( talk) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there 2over0, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:2over0. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC I think that one's baked. All the involved admins seem to have come to rest, and it's closable with the sanction wording you drafted. Do you want to do the honors?
Re: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#142.68.95.166.2C_142.68.92.131 I have your CU results for you, what to do next? I dunno. Try the rangeblock, maybe, but write a really good log entry so that any anons know what to do... as per usual. Up to you. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
DuKu ( talk · contribs) seems to have taken your restriction on me as license to break 3RR on ExxonMobil. Perhaps you might care to remind him, forcefully, of the rules, and spare me the trouble of putting in a 3RR report (it would be too much to expect Lar to bother, I realise) William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you please ask WMC to change his post here [24] I did ask him but all he did was fix a typo :( There is no need for the sarcastic digs at wattsupwiththat or Joe d'Aleo. Thanks -- mark nutley ( talk) 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
Could you take a look at the content of the dispute at Great Filter? Robin Hanson, the prof who developed this hypothesis, has written quite a few articles about the future of technology and humanity, is a member of the Future of Humanity Institute, and so on. This makes him a futurist, by definition, and is very well supported by a large number and variety of reliable sources. So we should call him a futurist, in the view of 2 of the 3 editors working on this article. The remaining editor does not like this at all, and insists it is OR, or interpretation, etc. This seems very odd to me, since WP:OR explicitly states
Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly."
To the two of us, this seems exactly what we are doing, and your opinion on this issue would be most helpful.
Also, you locked the article in the anti-concensus state, in so far as 2 vs 1 can be described as concensus. This induces a practical problem, as the remaining editor is now perfectly happy with the locked state, has no reason to try to resolve this issue, and has indeed stopped discussing. Two things might help here - perhaps after half a week or so, swap it to the concensus state, or better yet, look at the arguments in addition to the reverts - perhaps you could add your voice on the side of reason, as you see it.
Thanks, LouScheffer ( talk) 01:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have made a proposal for unblocking this user on his talk page. Please read it and give your feedback. Thanks. Trusilver 09:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey 2/0, I think perhaps the edit history made it seem as though there was a large edit war when there wasn't. Oren0 reinserted the old "Code and documentation" section that had resulted from consensus built in the "Long/Short/Very Short" section on the talk, which was then reverted by Scjessey for having broken refs (Scjessey didn't speak against the addition itself), at which point I fixed the refs myself and put it back. That was all well and good (though I suppose it could have seemed ominous). But then WMC removed the section, for the third time and for his old reasons (over and against WP:V). The relevant diffs can be found here:
Would you consider removing the content lock in place of sanctions on WMC for this disruptive behavior? -- Heyitspeter ( talk) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how close you've been following this but the recent flair-up was instigated by this massive re-write which, while done in a good-faith attempt to improve the article, was done without discussion much less consensus. You've now locked in this version thereby rewarding bad behavior and removing some sections about which hard fought consensus had been achieved. Prior to the re-write, with the exception of the drive-bys, we were working quite collaboratively and making progress. I think the fair thing to do would be to rv to the original and see if we can't continue to make progress from there. JPatterson ( talk) 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you consider taking this off early? I'd like to add a bunch of images, and replce the emails section with the summary that has reasonable acclaim (and no dissent), and input from both "sides." It's a shame that some editors don't get it - perhaps you should ban them from the article? All of them. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It is inappropriate for you to continue to abuse your tools to go after one side of the AGW dispute and to promote a particular version of article content. Your full protection after William's edit warring to remove a section is another example of your inappropriate involvement.
Please stop abusing your position of trust within this community to promote a particular point of view that you happen to agree with. This is not appropriate behavior. I understand that you may have strong opinions on the issue of Global Warming, but that's all the more reason you need to allow uninvolved admins to deal with the situation. Thank you. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I would be grateful if you would run your eye over Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#Initial conclusions, regarding a dispute over a section in the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. Can you see if there is any fault in my logic, and its application, or a misrepresentation of other editors actions or my understanding of policy. Although I would be grateful if you would note if you concur with my findings, at that page, I would understand if you didn't. I would also be grateful if you would note any dissent or disquiet in regard to my comments, again at that page. Cheers, LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Another unreleated issue on the same page. In justifying WMC's removal of the section you wrote "As most of the material remained, however, I read this as a minor issue of presentation, not a fundamental one of edit warring.". Huh? He removed the entire section. Could you clarify your meaning? JPatterson ( talk) 16:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As usual, the thread is spiralling off into irrelevance. But I hope you've noticed I've counted and found that "out" is in a majority. While it doesn't prove consensus to remove, it destroys the notion that there was consensus to keep William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to point out that this edit broke the content restriction. I've asked the editor to self-revert ( here), but figure I should let you know in case of resistance as you're the protecting admin.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 23:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Now that Dave S. has split the article from which I am banned, I suppose one could argue that I am free to edit in the fork. I've decided not to make such an argument and sit out the rest of my ban. Clarification on this though might be appropriate in case it should come up in the future on a longer ban. Regards. JPatterson ( talk) 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2^0, I have replied to your comment. If you'd like to institute a username policy on when and in which cases short forms and abbreviations are allowable, the place do that is the Village Pump.
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point or attempt to engage in arbitrary enforcement actions to push your point of view by targeting editors you disagree with on content issues. You also need to refrain from admin involvement on the AGW articles because of your repeated refusal to enforce civility and edit warring policies violations on William, while going after other editors on dubious, arbitrary and nebulous assertions per your personal whims. That's not how things are done here and your abusive behavior has been very disruptive. If you have contructive input on how the AGW content can be improved, please offer up your ideas at the appropriate venues. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added the probation notice to Talk:Greenhouse effect. Seems it was missed and you have warned Chicco3 regarding their edits there. Vsmith ( talk) 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A few of us have started a proposal to try and resolves the never ending stream of rename requests for Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and are working behind the scenes to gather support for it here. TGL had been mentioned by ChrisO as someone who might be useful to have on board with the proposal. Given his recent topic ban would you be willing to make an exception to allow him to simply endorse this proposal (if he is so inclined)? Every show of faith in the proposal will help to bring others on board. Thanks for your consideration. -- GoRight ( talk) 15:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see this discussion regarding the old page move of lanthanide to lanthanoid. Jdrewitt ( talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you take a quick look at this WP:Coatrack. I've outlined numerous BLP issues here. After getting no responses, I made the edits to remove the objectionable material in a series of edits starting here. (I did it in a series so each rationale could be summarized). The changes were reverted in mass without discussion here. Requested self-revert on users talk page. Non-responsive so I reverted and filled a BLP notice here. My changes we're reverted again here, again with no attempt to justify the sourcing as required by WP:BLP. I've tagged the article {BLP dispute}, and add the blp warning template to the users talk page.
The issue with sourcing in this article should be completely non-controversial. It is using primary sourced data to draw conclusions and strings multiple sources together to synthesize points not made explicitly in any. References to wikilinks, blogs and non-existing web pages abound. Not sure where to go from here. Thanks. JPatterson ( talk) 17:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
New subject: Is this cool? Also, these ( [28] [29]) were not helpful. JPatterson ( talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
[30] calls an editor malicious.
[31] Calls the same editor malicious again.
[32] Edits my post (i forgot to sign) in contravention of earlier enforcement action. And of course saying he does not care about his current enforcement.
Please give him a topic ban or should i do a request for enforcement? -- mark nutley ( talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And calls an editor an "old fruit" again. *sigh*-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And another: "You snarking above seems all-too-typical of your style." ATren ( talk) 00:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow - why don't you-all find something productive to do. This looks like primary school tattle-tale time. The pack is on the scent. Seriously the noticeboard is that-away... Vsmith ( talk) 03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't expect this admin to do anything. He's a true believer in settled science. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
"Settled science" is anti-science. Settled science is religion. It is the polar opposite of scholarship and critical thinking. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The link you dropped on my tp was directed to the wrong target which led me to believe it was my comment re AGF that you were taking me to task for. See my tp for more. JPatterson ( talk) 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your criticism lacked focus. Provide appropriate diffs. Nightmote ( talk) 02:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
When I see a line from a news article that is phrased so perfectly and succinctly that I can't figure out how to say it any better, I'll often attribute the information and include it with only a small modification. According to the essay you showed me, it's something I shouldn't do. So, I appreciate you pointing that out to me. One issue associated with that edit is an issue that I've found common with several of the regulars on the AGW articles, and that's that they'll often revert without making any attempt to correct or improve the edits that they disapprove of. The edits in that article, and some edits I did over at Lawrence Solomon, in which a couple of account names you are probably familiar with reverted my edits then later admitted that they could only dispute part of what I had added, is illustrative of what I'm talking about. I don't know if it's a Wikipedia requirement that editors operate in a collaborative and helpful manner, but after experiencing congenial collaboration and cooperation in the MILHIST project, it's disappointing to see that behavior dismissed so out-of-hand on other subjects, most glaringly in many science-related articles. Cla68 ( talk) 03:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I think Guettarda should be admonished for his tone in this discussion. [34] This is pure vitriol from start to finish. The discussion starts with an initial source, stating, "The thieves’ eureka moment came when they found messages from Jones, the unit’s director, and others apparently encouraging climate scientists to refuse freedom of information (FoI) requests from known climate sceptics, and even to destroy data rather than surrender them to anyone they feared might misuse them." Cla68 initially summarized this as "Critics have charged that the emails showed that Jones appeared to direct his team to refuse to provide data for Freedom of information (FOI) requests." Guettarda reverted with the following: "'Apparently encouraging [people]' is clearly not the same as 'direct[ing people]'. In addition, 'direct[ing] his team' implies that he was using his position as unit leader to direct his staff to do wrong. Not supported by the source. Quite a smear to add to a BLP." In simpler terms, the source says Jones "apparently encourag[ed]" not that he "apparently directed." Ok, so Cla68 adjusted it to "appeared to encourage." [35] Now Guettarda says the problem is the reference to "critics," which he calls "horrible form," and a "misrepresentation of the source" since the author discusses "thieves" rather than "critics." Move the goal posts, fine, although this is incorrect; the article directly says the emails "apparently" show this, so if anything Cla68 has only understated the author's claim. Finally Cla68 brings another source, which states, "In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007." Cla68 posts this on the talk page and says, "Ok, I'll make it say exactly what it says here." [36] He changes the text to something nearly identical, with a direct attribution in the text. Now Guettarda responds that Cla68 has gone "from bad to worse," has now comitted a "copyvio," and comments that, "as bad as the last bit, this has me shocked."
Nearly every one of Guettarda's comments in this discussion is needlessly uncivil, while several such as this are direct personal attacks. There is no evidence of any miconduct whatsoever on Cla68's part. There is no excuse for it; this is abusive behavior that has gone on too long. Mackan79 ( talk) 23:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
New section as requested – a possible way of improving the editing environment would be to encourage newcomers to the topic to follow policies requiring due weight to the scientific majority view, and policies promoting a collegial editing environment, as disussed here. The importance of civility, cooperation, and collaboration is all to easily undermined by civil POV pushing, and while I appreciate the efforts to impose sanctions, there have been evident difficulties with the Requests for enforcement page becoming another venue for such arguments. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi 2^0. In order to assist me in gathering diffs of your abusive enforcement actions and your disruptive activity in the AGW articles, could you please provide me with a list of enforcement actions you've taken and the relevant editor names? Have you done a single block or ban on any of the disruptive propagandists who are trying to cleanse the encyclopedia of scientific information such as content and links related to episodes of global warming that occured before the 20th century? Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You all get one and only one clue, and this is it: WP:RFC/U. -- TS 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
talkback|nsaa|Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement}}
Hi, i moved a wip into main space [37] However if i delete it from my sandbox the mainspace page also gets removed? How can i clear my sandbox and not delete the article? mark nutley ( talk) 14:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You recently blocked the above for edit waring over the use of BI. More or less immediately on his return he has started again against a clear talk page consensus on a minor article Five Peaks Challenge. There has been a 1RR enforcement in place on the use of the BI term which also applies. He appears to be a largely single purpose account. Any chance you could have a look? -- Snowded TALK 22:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
i have a question about somone removing my addition to american dream,i recently added a referance to a book by john steinbeck about it being one of the key themes of his book and showing the futility of it, somone keeps removing it at first with no reason, then saying that i have no source, where i have several, and now saying that it is vandalism. Now i believe that putting a referance to this book can be useful to many people who are researching american dream and possible literature that could be of use. Is this either vandalism on my part, or the user that is constantly deleting my post. Thanks in advance. ( 86.180.90.107 ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
"The American Dream is also a main theme in the book by John Steinbeck, "Of Mice and Men". The two friends George and Lennie dream of their own piece of land with a ranch, so they can "live offa the fatta the lan'" and just enjoy a better life. But the symbolism shows this is futile due to the fact that it will never happen, and that they end up shooting lenny in the back of the head, like candys' dog. This shows that not everyone can achive the american dream, thus proving by contradiction it is not possible."
would the use of a referance to many essays that have been written about this subject prove to you that it has a legitimate reason to be added there? Also by the term reference, i ment to one of the key themes of the book, not to a source if you miss understood what i said i am sorry. Also to the fact of no research i would like you to have a look at this clearly stating from a reliable source, the gardian newspaper, that the book has the theme of the faliure of the american dream
{{
talkback|nsaa|wp:notforum}}
Nsaa (
talk) 11:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm outta the dog now, right? JPatterson ( talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi 2over0, there has been discussion at the ani thread you opened and I (after reviewing evidence and case histories) have suggested some sanctions. Just thought you'd like to know-- Cailil talk 10:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
[38] I do not think i am, could you let me know if i am breaching my parole and if so i`ll self revert. thanks mark nutley ( talk) 15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
[39] Thats like 3 days of talk? mark nutley ( talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello 2over0, I am Eve Higgs, the employee in charge of our (GridPoint) Website, www.gridpoint.com. I created a page for our CEO and his various activities to benefit the future of clean energy. I was instructed to utilize his bio *as seen on our Website,* but with a few edits. There is no copyright infringement; your notice states that the copyright infringement is for our Management page. But that's the point: it's OUR management page, and I was instructed to use the bio as it appears on the site. Please advise on what other proof you need in order to replace the page ASAP. Thank you. One other question: is it not policy to email the author before deleting a page? Please reply to my email address below. Thank you, Ehiggs ( talk) 18:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I draw your attention to [40]. Is this considered acceptable? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Not requesting or expecting action on this, but: User_talk:Hipocrite#Remove_section.3F. Perhaps you could collapse the section in question seeing as how it isn't going to be removed. I'm not sure how.- Heyitspeter ( talk) 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I wondered how to phrase that result, but your block of the submitter captured the issue well. Now I guess you will be raked over the coals by the blockee (complete with legal jargon) and threatened with Arbcom, but c'est la vie. I think he actually does make a contribution here, but sometimes the specific behavior can be very annoying. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi 2over0, I noticed you blocked User:THF for a significant period, but I can't quite make out why he was blocked. He appears to have been in a conflict with a couple of other editors, but I'm not really seeing any blockable offenses; certainly nothing worse than what his opponents did/wrote. One of them appears to have actually violated 3RR, but not been blocked. I think it would be best to unblock THF at this point, but I wanted to raise the issue with you first. Cheers! Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. His opponents have engaged in edit warring, uncivil language, and assuming bad faith, yet the only action taken against them was that one of them (a long-time user) was warned for violating 3RR.-- Drrll ( talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Like Drrll, I am an involved party, but I thought I should register my objection to unblocking. The conflicts haven't been pretty, and there's plenty of blame to go around, but in the end the conflicts begin with THF's inability to play well with others. Whatever mistakes any other parties may have made do not excuse THF's constant torrent of accusations, often in the midst of what should be the most simple and clear cut discussions. For those who think he should be unblocked, I have two questions. 1) Why do you feel THF's behavior is appropriate for a Wikipedia editor? 2) What would you do or have us do to to prevent conflict with such a hostile editor? Gamaliel ( talk) 17:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
For my own reference, can you identify the tendentious edits you think I made? It's certainly never my intent to be tendentious. I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#A_request_for_consistent_application_of_NPOV_and_BLP. THF ( talk) 05:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at these [41], [42] ... they seem to focused on editors and less on sources or content. Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 03:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking specifically how you would deal with a situation like this. You've "reported" William for violating a standard that you don't seem to hold yourself to. Are you saying that the behavior is acceptable in your case, but unacceptable in William's, because he is an obstructive "bad apple" and you are not? I don't want to put words in your mouth, nor to pick on you in particular, but this is a recurring theme in this dispute and I would like to understand the thought process. MastCell Talk 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)