User talk:2over0/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Independent Association of Georgian Journalists

Hello, Independent Association of Georgian Journalists was deleted yesterday. I just want to confirm that this organization exists and the sources indicating the same. http://www.ifex.org/georgia/2009/11/10/georgia-russia-joint-statement.pdf http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,ANNUALREPORT,CPJ,GEO,47c566d825b,0.html http://cpj.org/2006/02/attacks-on-the-press-2005-georgia.php http://www.rjionline.org/mas/code-of-ethics/journalistic-ethics-code http://www.media.ge/en/node/12045 http://www.finchannel.com/Main_News/Press_Releases/51570_IFJ_Endorses_Joint_Russian_%10_Georgian_Demand_to_End_Media_Restrictions/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.240.242.140 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Balagurusamy

I need to look into the contents of this deleted page, where can i view these ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.247.138 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It was unambiguously copied whole-cloth from http://archives.chennaionline.com/chat/celebchat/26vc-profile.asp (or perhaps they share a common source). If you would like to create an encyclopedia article about Dr. Balagurusamy, please feel free. Wikipedia:Your first article has some helpful advice. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Template Feedback

Hi, when available your feedback here Template talk:Inappropriate comment would be appreciated. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Commented, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Username?

User:HideTheDecline looks to me to fall under "user name created to push a POV". The edits support this William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, they registered in the middle of one of those intermittently polite debates at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, but they have now been inactive for a few days. WP:UAA is not somewhere that I have experience, but you can take it there (probably better to raise it on their talk first) or bring it to RE if they start editing disruptively. I am a bit busy this week, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change / Hacking incident edit war

Hi. Please could you provide some comments here. My inclination is to lance this boil, but not sure how. Cheers LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely edit warring, but I would need to follow along at the talkpage to be sure of where to go with it. I am a bit busy this week - sorry. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Replacement link for Cohen paper "The Earth is Round (p < 0.05)"

I think the link on your user page for the Cohen Earth probably round paper is obsolete.

I found a possible replacement: http://www.projectimplicit.net/nosek/teaching/761/cohen.pdf

Great read! Thank you.

M.boli (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that is the one - thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to tamp down some off topic discussion ...

on the request for enforcement page per your requests of several editors including Scjessey. He appears willing to edit war here to keep that discussion alive and so I shall wash my hands of the situation and leave the matter to you. --GoRight (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recommend you examine all the diffs and draw your own conclusion, rather than swallow this spin-doctored misrepresentation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, it's ok to press other editors to fully clarify their positions on something, but personalizing disagreements beyond that isn't very helpful or conducive to a collaborative and cooperative atmoshpere. Please try to keep that in mind. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth

I noted your request to atren just now. I think there is a more general problem with his line of argument, in that he tends to make unsupportable statements and, when challenged, to divert onto other poorly researched claims. Not that unusual, you may say, but not good for the atmosphere when the claims concern conduct issues and he just won't acknowledge corrections and simply fires off more complete tosh. I'm not unsympathetic to his concerns, but sloppily researched accusations slipped into discussions, at the level I saw tonight, amount to indiscriminate mud-slinging. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 06:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I simply pointed out your contradictory position: you defend an editor (WMC) who has been shown to edit-war to keep an embarrassing non-notable 40-year-old claim in an article intro of a BLP, an action which was reported in reliable outlets outside of Wikipedia at the time, while attacking an editor from the "other side" who posts links to current news items on article talk pages for evaluation. To you, the former is fine, the latter is abusive. That's a supremely inconsistent position, and I simply pointed it out to you. And by the way, your last post on Lar's page was littered with inaccuracies (for example, Fred Bauder never said the word "embarrassing", and WMC's use of the term was not even in response to one of Fred's reverts). Do not misinterpret my decision to disengage there as concession of any of your points. As I said, I'll leave it for others to evaluate, and raise it with arbcom when the time comes.

As I said in my response to 2/0, my activity on that page was in direct response to the topic under discussion -- whether the actions of AGW editors had brought the project into disrepute. Singer's case was a clear case of that, and Solomon got that one right. His editorial was picked up by several media outlets, in fact. So I came to the page in response to your direct request for examples, I provided diffs of WMC's edit warring (with Fred Bauder for pete's sake! This isn't exactly Scibaby-squashing!), and I showed the obvious inconsistency of your own view. I only raised the allegation of article ownership in response to your attempt to imply that the frivolous claim's presence in the article today is somehow a justification of WMC's actions then, when it's presence really indicates the opposite -- it supports my ownership claim to have such an unweighty claim in a BLP.

So your accusations here hold no water. If you continue to make flawed arguments (and your defense of WMC certainly was) I reserve the right to correct you, even if that means making allegations that I KNOW are true but I'm still gathering evidence to support. As I said on my talk, this is a daunting task that I'm taking on, and it takes a lot of time to gather and present. In any case, I think I presented sufficient evidence on Lar's page to support my points. This is a non-issue. ATren (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for AGW enforcement

I understand you're on wikibreak, but if you're available [1]. I'll leave a note on the other involved admin's talks also. Cla68 (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I will see if I can find the time, but it is likely that I will not be able to do due diligence in investigating this dispute and thus shall not comment. Thank you for the notice, though. I have requested additional volunteers at AN/I. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Dispute Resolution

Replying to your comment; I largely agree with the sentiment, but going back the original issue Scj was being reprimanded for using the term "sceincedenier". Now, continuous name calling without considered debate is pointless and does sully wikipedia, but I think Scj's mixing in a few pejoritives with his considered debate is mostly harmless. What I dislike is people who insist we pander to very very thin skinned individuals. Anyway, thanks for the debate. Enjoy your Wikibreak. NickCT (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See the Victim bullies link a few sections up for a more cynical take on that particular issue (though Dean Dad is obviously more interested in academia than Wikipedia). - 2/0 (cont.) 00:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That was an interesting read. Thanks for sharing it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind the aside ... It has been established that ego, supper-ego and id are valid three way models for human interaction and survival. Ego assertive bullies and passive aggressive (id) prone personalities are often balanced by supper-ego folks interested what is best for the community. Nature organized us this way simply because those are three realms of me, you and we. This three way model can then be combined with the three brain modes of thinking, feeling and basic instinct. With this there are 9 fundamental characters in this drama for survival, who replay, combine time after time is similar patters of behavior, while rules advance faster than people, to fairly guide the interactions. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Toxic Kandy productions

this is a fictictious company that a person is going around saying he owns and operates after researching 2 sources for registered business's so how do i present this without you deleting it? the purpose of the article was to let people who look for this company that it is not real so that they would not get ripped off was my sources sunbiz and tess improperly marked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.156.4 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Helping people not get ripped off is a laudable goal, but there would need to be coverage by reliable sources before Wikipedia could have an article on the subject. Have there been any news reports of people who have tried to buy clothing from TKP, or media buzz reporting an opening date, or reports to the Better Business Bureau, or any sort of mention of the company not put out by the business itself? - 2/0 (cont.) 21:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

MN unblock

I see you unblocked MN, after he promised to leave articles alone and continue work on an article wip in my sandbox, and to prepare another RFC . He has already broken that William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I clarified in the next section that I only intended climate change articles, not including talkpages, to be included in the unblocking condition. Thank you for keeping an eye out, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems at variance with his request for unblock, but its up to you William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I based it on the you have my word i will not edit any article in the probation area for the specified period part - that is sufficient to stop disruption in that particular matter. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No violation?

Could you explain to me how you arrived at your decision that Crohnie was actually *not* edit warring at the Jeffrey R. MacDonald article? Seems to me that continually reverting stuff out of anger would most certainly constitute edit warring. I'd appreciate hearing from you on this. Thanks, SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history of that article and surrounding talk, the options that I could see were: block the both of you (under WP:EW, though not WP:3RR); lock the article; or suggest that there might be better ways of dealing with editing disagreements. As you are both long term productive editors and have also been talking (not always productively, but talking), I guessed that the suggestion should be all that would be necessary. This is minimally disruptive to the continued progress of building a high quality encyclopedia. May I suggest other avenues of dispute resolution? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it - seriously, I don't get it. I did everything in my power to try and get her to stop edit warring. Yet, you say you would have blocked *me*? For crying out loud - why? If anyone was being disruptive it was most cetainly Crohnie, not me. So...tell me this - if I wait 24 or 48 hours or a week to revert the havoc she created in that article, am I going to be blocked for edit warring? If so - why? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Admirer

You have an admirer: User:2OverO William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Now blocked. I'm cleaning up the mess he's left behind. The IP traces to a school; is this someone you've come across before? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation?

I must say, s/he's willing to put some effort into her/his jokes[2] Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That ... is kind of amazingly creepy. I recognize in those contributions language copied from my blocking statement for GoRight and my unblock of my (completely erroneous) block of ZuluPapa5 right off, and some of the rest of it reads like me too. Registering any easy permutation of my username seems to be blocked now for being to close either to me or that, and I registered User:two.over.zero as a throwaway just in case. Thank you very much to everyone who cleaned that up. ChrisO - where did you get the IP address? This is new to me, but feel free to email me if you have anything else. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I worked with other (real!) admins on IRC to get the account blocked and do a quick checkuser. It didn't come up as any known sockpuppeteer, but it was clearly someone who was familiar with you. I suspect the address used (a school) was probably an open proxy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain why I could not find it. Thank you again. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific and general question

Hi. My specific question: As you're the most recent administrator to enforce something at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement, I thought I would inquire with you. It seems there is nobody currently reviewing that page. After a series of WP:3RR and other tendentious and pointy edits a few weeks ago, several bizarre edits there and elsewhere last night by the same user have been reported there. Another user was instructed to go to ANI. I'm wondering if the way to move forward is to request admins watch the Sanctions/Probation/Enforcement page, and if not, what that means about the page's status.

On a more general level, the problem of determining if there are really eyes on any page is a problem across the board. I recently posted an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies, and could get no response whatsoever as to how many if any are actually an active part of that project monitoring the page. It's one thing if the judgement of a couple interested parties determines your request doesn't merit action; its another thing if there's simply nobody there. There should be some way for users jumping through these hoops to know the difference. I just don't know where to bring up that issue, as the discussion here Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Hello, ello, llo, lo? was unproductive.

I realize the RfE and the RfC are two completely different realms at first glance, but beyond the respective issues that took me there in the first place is a common component, the lack of transparency whether the store is open and staffed or not, and where the doorbell is. Even if you don't want to be the policeman at that Enforcement page and all you can do is suggest where better to ask these two questions, I thank you for your response. Abrazame (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For the immediate problem, I would wait until the next request is made to that page, then post a short neutral note to Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI requesting input. The problem with a community probation is that it needs to be maintained by the community. I am guessing that the people who were involved at the outset have largely moved on without being replaced.

More generally, you can click on the history tab and then the link labeled Number of watchers, but that is a highly imperfect metric. For instance, I monitor the homologous climate change board, but it is not on my watchlist, and that tool will count editors who are not currently active. One rule I try to follow myself is to comment on three or four other threads whenever I request outside input. As a half-baked idea, you might see if there is any interest at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests to set up a transcluded template on the main Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page listing the headers at the several probation boards. Please let me know if you start a discussion along those lines. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

2/0 is going on a wikibreak for the next little while. My email is enabled and I subscribe to the RSS feed for this page, but please only bring up matters in which I am already involved. If it really cannot wait, grab a time machine and I will see you earlier. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (post-dated for archival purposes)

Post-date amended - a little more free time now. If anyone has any hot tips for The Oscars this weekend, put 'em here. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Need to judge the consensus at WP:AN#Topic ban for your review

Seven editors have commented, including Caleb Murdock and Verbal who are clearly involved. There is about equal support for indefinite block of Caleb and for a topic ban from the Seth Material. How do you see consensus there? Should we advertise for an uninvolved admin to close the thread, or is the situation already clear enough? EdJohnston, Guy, yourself and Brangifer favor the topic ban. Brangifer, Atama and Verbal (involved) want an indef block. A topic ban is weaker than an indef block, so in case of doubt, the topic ban might be a better choice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A response re: your comment on my talk page

I responded to your comment on my talk page here. Thank you taking the time to write me. Moogwrench (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

KDP/Lindzen

2/0, how much longer do I have put with this for? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to have moved on and grown more complex while I was away, sorry. The additional eyes should help matters.

Archive notice: related discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#egregious abuse of Wikipedia in nearly all climate change BLPs. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Natural Resources Stewardship Project

I believe that consensus is [3] [4] [5] that the blog is unreliable and should be removed. WMC appears to be the only one pushing to use that blog as a source and is deleting selected comments from the discussion about it on his talk page. I looked up "Natural Resources Stewardship Project" in Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand and am ready to begin giving that article better sourcing as soon as protection is lifted. If WMC insists on readding the blog as a source to the article, I can think of a more direct and effective fix for that than fully protecting the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your consensus is fake William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC, go check the article. It now says basically the same thing, but using reliable sources instead of an advocacy blog. The good sources don't seem to have been that hard to find. Notice that several editors cooperated and collaborated to produce the better sources and get them into the article. So, there are at least two lessons I hope you will take away from this incident. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection expired now, sorry about the late response. Thank you for working this out on talk and improving the sourcing. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed.

I swore that I would stay out of the whole AGW thing, but I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marknutley who seems to have a fairly narrow field of interests. I don't know if he has come across your radar previously but I think a short review could be in order. Thanks, Unomi (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have come across his radar a few times :-) The last time was a block in fact, take a closer look on my talk page mark nutley (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mark Nutley is a so-called "climate change skeptic". I say "so-called" because, as we all know, all skeptics are either (1) politically motived right wing extremists; (2) industry funded "deniers"; (3) industry funded "contrarians" (see (2)); or in the fall through case (4) just too stupid to grasp the Truth of AGW theory. Whatever the root cause of the so-called "skepticism", he is by definition a denier, and therefore a tendentious editor. Now the trouble is, you can't just ban him for being a skeptic, because the silly Wikipedia Foundation won't actually let you do that (NOTE: this needs to be amended). My suggestion to you is to try the following: Have a few of the other editors gang up on him. There's at least 50 or so who'll be willing to help you with this. Usually you'll need at least a group of about three for this to work effectively. The three of you should then harrass him for a number of weeks. Just oppose him on everything, regardless of policy, but do it politely. You can't get into trouble for opposing him on policy -- even if he's right -- because no one really understands or cares what the policies all mean and no one can prove that you don't believe what you're saying. Try this, and in most cases, you'll find it takes just a few weeks before the tendentious editor will be regularly violating our High Principles of editorial conduct. That is, you'll find him edit warring, being incivil, and assuming bad faith. Hopefully it won't drag on into months and years as it's taken for some of the so-called skeptics, e.g. GoRight, but however long it takes, come back once you're done, and 2/0 should be able to ban him under the climate change probation guidelines. Or did you mean that Mark is already violating the Code of Conduct? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice to Mark ... ignore the PA it just leads to further off topic discussions. Every statement you make must point to an objective source for verification. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

@Unomi - I cannot imagine why anyone would swear off the climate change articles :). But yeah, as MN says I have run across his edits before. I could wish that he would be a little more specific over at RS/N, but in general upgrading sourcing is a good thing. As of last I checked, he was being careful to replace arguably sub-par sources with {{cn}} rather than gutting the articles, and at least in a few instances these have subsequently been replaced with the sources for the blog posts themselves or equivalent, giving us better articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

the indian ocean is far away from the indonesian coast

should the name of this disaster be changed to "2004 indonesian tsunami" since it happened only a few miles off the west coast of indonesia

thanksJigglyfidders (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but I doubt it - we should try to capture the full topic with the title, which the current article name does better. Feel free to peruse the archives for old discussions and then raise your points at Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

SCIRS

An idea I have been kicking around for the last six months or so is finally live at User:2over0/SCIRS. This discussion on the "discovery" of magnetic monopoles shows part of why it might be handy to have a guideline devoted to reliable sources in the context of science - the research described was genuinely pretty cool, but the reporting of it in the popular press was across the board pretty awful. I would like to get the obvious problems ironed out before advertising this page a bit more widely, but all are free to contribute collegially. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Corollary: Fools seldom differ. :P MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

By late 2009, the newly approved SCIRS guideline was clearly an idea whose time had come. ~headline from The Wikipedia Signpost, Saint Ursula's Day 2010.

Second corollary: All horses are the same color. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

@SBHB - I note that your version makes a distinction between the natural and social sciences. I am not familiar enough myself with the latter to know if the distinction is important at this level. Certainly the social scientists have fewer things they can point to and say the mass of an electron is just over half an MeV/c², known to some obscene number of decimal places with a tiny and well-characterized uncertainty, but they still rely on the peer reviewed literature. Then again, the relative lack of breadth of my experience is one of the reasons why I want an extended comment period before submitting this to wider discussion of whether or not it should be a guideline. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to think that there's a lot of overlap with at least some of the social sciences - fields like geography or psychology, for example. I'd say that these guidelines should apply to any field that's primarily experimental. Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a social scientist (and don't even play one on TV) but work with enough of them to be aware that their culture has important differences from the natural sciences. Their approach to publication is very different, for example. Guettarda also makes a good point in that the boundaries between disciplines can be fuzzy.

Also I just found Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines of which I was previously unaware. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Climate change feedback

Thanks for fixing the DOI. As you noted, I did check dx.doi.org, but wasn't sure what to do next, except to leave a note. I now see that the template was typed wrong. Q Science (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it, thank you. Reading it now, my edit summary seems a little pissy - sorry about that. I Googled the DOI and checked the result against the citing statement. Very likely I would not have noticed had you not left your note - collaborative editing for the win! - 2/0 (cont.) 12:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

nudge time

[6] Try and put some time aside to get this sorted out :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 2010-01-31 22:12

Talkback 1

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Nsaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident Just Exploded Again Re the Title

Someone brought the naming of the article to Jimbo Wales's attention, where he said it should be named Climategate instead, and the billion page watchers all flooded onto the talk page of the CRU Hack. This is a total mess. Half the people are dogpiling JW - there are suggestions that he is violating AGF! - and the other half are white knighting him. You uh... might want to just go on vacation. Ignignot (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That, I think, is the most reasonable advice I have heard all year :). I saw our beloved founder's statement over at his talkpage, and found it perfectly reasonable, if open to misinterpretation from people who think he said a lot more than he actually said (though, as you correctly surmise, I have not checked out the latest kerfluffle). Personally, I really do not care what we call that mess, though it would be nice if people would stop bickering about it. I was talking with Moogwrench the other day about the archiving frequency and how it can cut occasional editors out of the conversation if reasonable suggestions are moved to the archive too quickly. What are the chances if I ignore this until the weekend I will have any chance of understanding the talkpage? I am not sure if I will have the time and patience to do due diligence on this one, but thank you for the heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you were asking rhetorically, but there is so much action on the talk page right now that it would be a little tricky to archive correctly. I think the archive bots don't archive discussions that are active, and most sections have seen comments due to the sheer number of people involved at this point. One thought: when we were misbehaving and chatting in grammar school, our teacher did not attempt to understand the discussion, just return attention to what matters through shock and surprise (banging a ruler on a desk, whatever). You might not have to wade through everything to get people mostly in line. Ignignot (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback 2

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Comments by uninvolved editors need to cease.
Message added 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird happenings on ghost

I guess here is the best place to start. After the discussion gets side-tracked onto content issues and the conduct of others I try to restore the theme, which is Hans's conduct. Hans replies with a justification for his behavior. You're usually quite good at this kind of thing. Would you like to take a look and see if you can help matters? --TS 00:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Or well, the up to date version of that page. A bit of warning though, the backstory spans atleast 4 rfcs, some ani threads and an AE. Unomi (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not administratively, but I had noticed a bit of unpleasantness after those RfCs (the one in which I participated, and I saw one after that but did not opine). Also, I will mail a cookie to the first person to stop edit warring (archive/TPW notice: not the people above, just related fallout) at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen

2/0, so what you like me to do with this standoff at RL? You've warned me for edit-warring despite the fact that I've waited at least 36 hours between all reverts. That wasn't my understanding of WP:3RR or 1RR. Meanwhile, the last comment in talk says, "revert it because it fails weight, but don't call it a BLP violation" (I paraphrase). So who's going to do that? Your note about "chilling effects" doesn't make any sense unless you interpret all BLP violations as being about libel (in which case, it should be called the LIBEL policy and it should have a LIBEL noticeboard). The BLP policy says that anything that is biased in a BLP = a BLP violation. End of story. In practice, of course, it seems to be interpreted as anything potentially libellous is a BLP violation worth edit warring over (and of course you need to be a lawyer to even have an opinion on libel). Anything that is not "verifiable" should go to the BLP/N, and as for blatant bias and just incorrect information, that goes to NPOV/N. Have I got this right now? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

2/0, for what it's worth you're one of about only 5% of editors in the climate change pages who appears, to me, to be actually, sincerely trying to help. I would genuinely appreciate your advice on what I am supposed to do in a situation such as the Lindzen one where I find myself now. You can contact me offline if you like. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick answer - seek outside input and be the one actively seeking a quality compromise. Long answer - I am only signed in briefly right now, but you absolutely deserve a better answer in a few hours. I just saw you reply from two days ago at your talkpage, so you can expect both that I will answer fully this evening (EST) and that I am not planning to take any ill-considered administrative actions. Please bear with me until then. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Long answer - WP:Edit warring covers a lot more than just 3RR. I think you might have been around since before the latter was merged into the former, so it might be worth a reread. Basically, reverting thrice in any 24 hour period is a sufficient but not necessary bright line beyond which any revert is obviously and blatantly edit warring, not counting the vandalism and BLP exceptions. Slow edit warring, where the same or substantially the same text is returned to or removed from an article over the course of days (or longer - sometimes people will wait months before bulk-reverting to their preferred version), is also detrimental to the progress of building an encyclopedia. You make good arguments at the talk page, but the fact that these two exceptions allow (require) behaviour that is otherwise verboten means that they must be used sparingly. For instance, it would be equally inappropriate for someone else to describe your removal of that section as vandalism and claim a 3RR exception.

Reading the discussion page now as well as three weeks ago, I see an argument that Lindzen's view on global warming is {under/over}represented, a basically related argument about the meaning of contrarian vs. holds contrarian views, and a great deal of discussion of whether our article is an accurate synopsis of what other people consider important about Lindzen's ideas and life. This all falls within normal editing so long as there are reasonable arguments on all sides and everyone is discussing the matter.

As an example where it would also, in my opinion, be inappropriate to invoke the BLP exception, consider Brian David Josephson. This is a Nobel laureate who predicted the eponymous Josephson effect, which is kind of a big deal in condensed matter physics. He also has some ideas about telepathy and some sort of vitalism, and features them prominently on his website. It is my considered opinion that the latter are grossly overweighted in comparison to actual biographical detail or the history of his more widely applied ideas (though the primary treatment of the effect itself should, of course, remain at Josephson effect). Someday when I have the time I intend to prune the article a bit and expand it a lot. In the strong sense, any BLP that fails to treat every relevant particular with precisely measured weight is in violation of the policy - such an article would inform a reader differently than had they read and evaluated all possible sources themself. In practical terms, though, as long as an article is within the realms of reason we should stick to standard editing norms.

I hope that this clarifies my views a bit, and good luck with the talkpage and BLP/N discussions, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying with respect to edit-warring. But you said, "This all falls within normal editing so long as there are reasonable arguments on all sides and everyone is discussing the matter." That is not the case here. There is a new tactic for dodging content policies: just refuse to answer objections. I am seeing a number of editors copy one of our ringleaders in this respect and regularly get away with it. So again, I am trying to understand why my decision to revert his material until he will answers the objections is problematic rather than his refusal to answer the objections. He is clearly, wilfully thumbing his nose at the system. And then you come along, as a representative of the Wikipedia Foundation, and support him... By supporting these badly behaving editors, as you are doing at the Lindzen article, I do not believe you are helping Wikipedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My user page

Blank it please. PCE (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason? I could also just unlock it so you can put whatever you want there (within reason, of course). I have asked NuclearWarfare to comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have unprotected the userpage in an act of good faith. Please be sure to follow all Wikipedia policies and guidelines when editing your userpage. NW (Talk) 21:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

NSF conflict update

Hi, thanks for your support at Placebo. I am working on the BullRangifer RfC/U, and as part of that I am documenting the extent of the recent disruption caused by him in connection to the misquoted Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, a policy-oriented executive report produced by the National Science Board for the US government. You may be interested to learn that the story, so far as I could trace it back, started with a very harmless and productive edit by you to Mediumship in September. [7] You quoted the previous SEI, SEI 2004, in what I consider a perfectly adequate way. Certainly if the SEI calls something pseudoscience, it's safe to say there is no scientific consensus that it exists.

The analysis is far from finished, but I think I can already guess one result: BullRangifer's belief in something gets stronger when the 'wrong' people contradict him, and that has caused the escalation. Shortly after Macromonkey removed the sentence for which you had provided a source, BullRangifer made it much stronger. Previous version: "The scientific consensus does not support the existence of spirits and the ability of people to communicate with them." (Source: SEI 2004.) After BullRangifer's edit: "The scientific consensus considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead and belief in ghosts and spirits to be pseudoscientific beliefs." (Source: SEI 2006.)

Shortly afterwards he copied this and similar formulations to other articles, and the more resistance he got, the more he made out of this poor source. At times his version was longer than the original passage on which it was supposed to be based.

I noticed that you supported the use of the source as absolutely correct in one of the RfCs. Some things that probably escaped your notice:

• There is a huge philosophical debate about adequate definitions of pseudoscience, started by Karl Popper. The standard test case is psychoanalysis. The NSF does not appear to take part in this debate.
• All serious contributors to the debate agree that mainstream religions and traditions should not be covered, and that pseudoscience shares some superficial characteristics with science.
• Several items on BullRangifer's list do not have any similarities with science (e.g. ghosts) and/or are part of a mainstream religion such as Hinduism/Buddhism (reincarnation). Thus they do not fit any of the notable definitions. (Red flag #1)
• The cited paragraph is preceded by a reasonable definition of pseudoscience, with a citation to a popular book (Red flag #2a). Several of the listed items are obviously not covered by that definition. (Red flag #2b)
• The SEI 2006 only talks about pseudoscience and lists the 10 fields in this context, citing a Gallup poll. The Gallup poll does not talk about pseudoscience at all: It only mentions paranormal. SEI 2006 makes no attempt to connect pseudoscience and paranormal. (Red flag #3)
• Nobody has managed to find any reliable sources that connect ghosts (other than ghost hunting and other special areas that have nothing to do with Hamlet or ghosts in Chinese culture etc.), haunted houses, reincarnation (other than reincarnation research), clairvoyance with pseudoscience. SEI is unique in this respect. (Red flag #4)
• SEI is produced mainly by statisticians, and it has a well defined purpose that is far removed from scholarship, philosophy of science or any other field qualified to define pseudoscience. Its main focus is to present a huge amount of statistical data for consumption by laypeople. The main author of the relevant chapter was a statistician. (Red flag # 5)

I consider this an important test case for how Wikipedia can deal (sociologically) with the temptation to quote-mine sources that can be misunderstood as saying things editors want to be true. (Another example is the crowd at List of common misconceptions that believes everything that is written in popular "misconceptions" compilations, and that uncritically believes every journalist who begins a story with "It is a common misconception that...".) For this reason, and because of the RfC/U I am preparing, I have started to collect some relevant information at User:Hans Adler/Science and Engineering Indicators (practical overview over SEI 2006, zooming into the cited passage) and User:Hans Adler/NSF disruption.

I just thought I should let you know all this because I have a very good impression of you and would really like to convince you of my point of view. Or if I am wrong, you might be someone who could explain convincingly why that is so. Hans Adler 00:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I have generally enjoyed working with you as well. I have been citing the SEIND reports since at least late 2007, and my general understanding is that they are a solid but tertiary source. I am actually not sure which of the cited studies they commission, but certainly the authors do not themselves test, for instance, the influence of magnets on health. They also do not speak with the voice of the NSF (there was an RfC or something along those lines oh, sometime in the last few years; probably on or related to the List of talkpage). This puts the source a bit below, say WHO or even APS writing on the safety of electromagnetic fields, but well above a newspaper or most books. Part of the point of such a document is that it is not saying anything particularly controversial.

I think, in essence, this dispute boils down to whether Wikipedia should use a loose popular definition of pseudoscience or a more subtle and rigorously defined definition. For something like ultra high vacuum, I would say we should always use the well-defined meaning even if a particular source plays fast and loose with the adjectives. In this instance, though, I am less sure. To paraphrase a common adage around here, WP:V is not a suicide pact - we want a consistent distilled sum of all sources.

I would caution, though, against holding too fast to the religion/pseudoscience demarkation - Ian Stevenson can be engaged in pseudoscience without having any bearing on (or coverage in) Hinduism in much the same way that hydrinos have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific status of quantum chromodynamics.

I may have some more to say on this later after reviewing your subpages. Do please let me know if you start an RfC. I am going to let BR know about this thread, as I am not sure if they watch this page these days. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Yes, your page is on my watchlist, but right now it says "You have 4,192 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I regularly prune it so it doesn't approach my 27,000+ contribution history I try to keep it around 4,000. That does mean I might not notice what's going on here, and I hadn't. I watch three full days at a time, so that makes a very long list, with many items sneaking under my radar.

My main concern with all this are the blatant assumptions of bad faith that have tainted everything. I'm being treated and constantly attacked as if I was a bad person. Even the labelling of my good faith attempts to follow our policy on using verifiable sources ("verifiability, not truth") are being called "disruption". That's a gross failure to AGF. Because of this, misunderstandings have been turned into accusations against me that bear no relation to the truth when examined. Straw men have been strewn all over the place within those attacks. I've been accused of lying, gaming the system, etc.. It's been pretty awful.

Before the current situation really became ugly, I had met some light resistance at the Ghost article from User:Dbachmann, User:Ludwigs2, and User:Cosmic Latte. I could understand the last two, because they have previously been recognized as pushers/defenders of certain fringe POV, but Dbachmann's motives have been a mystery to all, and I have asked. User:Hans Adler joined in later, since he's had a beef against me for some time and there is nothing I can do to appease him. No form of apology is accepted.

The problem with their arguments were/are that they weren't/aren't based solidly in policy, but in personal OR objections of various types, which have no legitimacy as to how we edit the encyclopedia. Still, I was beginning to be uncertain if I was on the right track or not by using the NSF quote, so I did what is recommended. I started an RfC at Ghost so I could get more input from other, uninvolved editors. (This has been termed "gaming the system"!!) The RfC notification was automatically placed on three different RfC watchlists, since the subject of ghosts can be viewed from various angles. I also notified various projects and noticeboards, including the fringe and alternative medicine ones. I thus felt I'd get input from editors of many different types, including many potentially contrary views. Sure enough, I "knew" very few of them that turned up. They all supported my RfC, with only the few objectors remaining as the lonely minority. I thus received overwhelming support for my being on the right track. No one bought the vigorous objections and arguments that Ludwigs2 et al brought forth, and they definitely DID object! Since then they still haven't come with any significantly different objections. It's just been going in rings. That's also disruptive beating of a dead horse and refusal to drop the stick.

The second RfC at Talk:NPOV also produced a solid consensus that I wasn't misinterpreting the source, misusing the quote, or taking it out of context. The objection that it was a primary source (which in the context was an irrelevant argument anyway) was also roundly rebuffed. I thus have continued to act in good faith, and have reminded my opposers (the same little group) that they were fighting the consensus in two RfCs. No policy violations were ever proven, and no policy-based arguments were ever used against me. The disruption therefore appears to be primarily from Ludwigs2 and Hans Adler, with occasional support from a couple others. Dbachmann has withdrawn from the fray, likely because he realized that his edit warring, ownership (declaring that the article must be split into forks and disallowing properly sourced content), improper deletions, personal attacks and such like would draw unwanted attention. I let him know that I'd seek to have him desysopped if he continued to violate policies in such a flagrant manner. It was all very unbecoming of an admin. He stopped the attacks shortly thereafter and hasn't been seen around me since.

There is no evidence that I have acted in bad faith or violated any policies. It boils down to "verifiability, not truth". There may be policy-based arguments for changing wordings, or choosing different placement in an article, but none of these attempts I have tried (even in the lack of such arguments) has worked. It has turned into a Brangifer/NSF allergy. If they see me edit, they appear and revert me. If anyone uses the NSF quote, it gets reverted. Even when I totally transformed the edit, placed it in a totally different context, used it in a different manner than before, and even at the bottom of the page, it got deleted. I had also explained why I did it on the talk page, but to no avail. The allergic reactions continue to this day. This type of revert-without-understanding-the-context is very disruptive. Ludwigs2 was blocked for edit warring only once during this whole process. If I had edit warred it would likely have gotten much worse. I never even began to get near 3RR, choosing instead to allow things to happen as they would. Usually other editors would support my edits, but the gang kept at it.

I think a careful examination of the context of this situation, including the edits and edit summaries surrounding the diffs provided by Hans Adler, will show that the disruption has been on the part of those who refused to abide by the consensus in the two RfCs, and who have repeatedly claimed that the NSF was wrong in the 2006 version, and latest that "other [NSF] documents" contradict the 2006 source. Ludwigs2 is now refusing to provide those "documents". That's a pseudoskeptical action, per Marcello Truzzi. Well, until I see some evidence from a NSF source that they have written something that contradicts this particular source, we have nothing else to base our opinion on. All objections are personal OR objections. The wikihounding needs to stop, and the revenge RfC/U they are preparing should be seen for what it is, more blockable disruption. They lost two RfCs and this is their way of extending their war against me. It's all very distasteful.

Well, I'll be off for now. My talk page has been vandalized for the second time by a vandalism-only account, and no one has blocked them yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clear something up for me

There is some confusion over whether you actually considered your indefinite block of me to be part of the Climate Change Probation, or not. See [8]. I don't really care which way you answer, but I would like to have a clear understanding of your position so that we can put the arguing to rest. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of letting you know earlier, I waited to see just how long it would take him to change his approach; it's taken 16 hours. It's been 8 hours since I reminded him that he should discuss his issue with you, ChrisO or Tony Sidaway, and it's taken up until now for basic common sense to sink into his head. You don't need to clear this up on my part as GoRight would try to make out; I'm not concerned by it either way. If I was to add anything though, I would suggest clearing up precisely what will happen if GoRight continues along the path he was treading so far; his talk page and the recent discussions he's participated in would reveal just how many users have cautioned him about disruptive behavior since the block was lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not invoke the probation in that block. In my considered opinion, it was not necessary to do so. I am, as stated in a link tracked down by GoRight in the abovelinked discussion, ambivalent as to whether it should be logged at that page. Their disruptive approach to editing extended far beyond this one topic area, making a block the minimally invasive effective sanction. The topic ban from article editing unblock condition should probably be logged with a link to the relevant discussion, as it is relevant to the probation area. There are enough people active at the RE board and around the topic area who are aware of GoRight's several general restrictions that I am not bothered one way or the other over linking to WP:RESTRICT. I would not want to start a precedent of copying the centralized log to each probation area where a particular editor is active. Perhaps we could take the approach of linking the central restrictions page once an entry is started at the CClog - this is a fairly small clerk burden, and informs the crafting of appropriate future sanctions.

I have intentionally avoided bothering to see what GoRight has been up to, as I do not think I have effectively communicated why their approach to editing before my block was so disruptive. If similar problematic editing behaviours and approaches have continued, please take it up with the unblocking admin, and then AN/I or RfC/U if necessary. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. --GoRight (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. You are welcome at my talk page any time, though I may defer on complex issues this week. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mister Flash

Hi, can you please review the latest from Mister Flash. He continues to stalk and revert my edits, and continues to leave personal comments on Talk pages and in edit summaries. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Owain

Heya, I'm still having problems with this user on Newport County A.F.C., he continues to remove templates requesting sources, despite a section on the talk page, please could you take another look at the matter? Thanks. Jeni ^(talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at BullRangifer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to have my user and talk page protected permanently. Do you know the other IPs he's used? -- Brangifer (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Caleb Murdock needs to be indef banned. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I have banned User:Ludwigs2 from my talk page. I think the last time I had to do that (worth noting) was User:Ilena. There comes a point where one can only take so much abuse and incivility. The last was over the top. Hearing the same thing again and again just isn't worth it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have certainly been underwhelmed by CM's actions lately. I expect that an AN/I or an AE under Pseudoscience would be in order either if this keeps up or they return to the editing patterns that led to the topic ban in the first place. Jane Roberts and Seth Material are quiet at the moment, but I will keep half an eye on them just in case. Do please let me know if you see anything untoward.

I am less sure what to do about the latest pseudoscience furor. AE might be an option, but I think you would be relying heavily on the 'serious respected encyclopedias do not treat these subjects credulously' card, which are countered by 'describe the cultural phenomenon' and 'showing is better than telling'. Better, probably, would be to gather up a few nice detailed reference works and rework the content at any weak points in presentation at the several articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Dikstr

Just so you are aware, the disruptive edit warring by Dikstr of the Global Warming page which has had the user blocked twice, most recently by yourself, is continuing. I believe this warrants further administrator attention. His changes clearly go against wikipedia policy, the current scientific consensus, and the talk page consensus. StuartH (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - edit warring very nearly the same point with still no mandate from the talk page - very poor form. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Thanks for your note on my talk page. Maybe some day I will read through there and figure out how to archive properly. I'm not very bright about technical computer/wiki stuff. (What an understatement! LOL) Did you create an archive page for me? If so, thanks, and please tell me how you did it. Does this mean anyone can archive my page? Best, Yopienso (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual page does not exist yet, but if you click on the link to User talk:Yopienso/Archive 1 you can create it. You can do the same for any page you want to create - just type the page name into the search box and edit away. Yes, anyone could archive your page, but it would be extremely poor form to archive another editor's talk page without permission. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Caleb Murdock

Hi, could you please semi protect my talk page due to continued IP vandalism by Caleb Murdock. Thanks, Verbal chat 07:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a month to see if he gets bored. Perfectly willing to go longer/shorter if you would like. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Merci, Verbal chat 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Caleb deserves an indefinite block for evasion and harassment. He obviously hasn't a clue about what Wikipedia is about, and is both immature and vindictive. I've been tagging some more of his IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it's futile effort to block all the IPs he's using, but this misuse of socks to evade a block is ban worthy. When will he be indef banned? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your homophobia is unacceptable, I cant believe you are an admin

Not only you are calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" here [9], you are also comparing them to drug use. I cant actually believe you can be so openly homophobic. Stop spreading such BS in Wikipedia. Phoenix of9 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is being discussed also at: User talk:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies Phoenix of9 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, I'm not seeing anything of the sort in that diff. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I quote: "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" Phoenix of9 07:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla, have you tried reading the page? 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. The depiction of homosexuality as immoral is certainly displaying a particulat point of view, one that could easily be called homophobia.

I hope that 2over0 has some explanation, homophobia seems at odds with the skills needed to be an effective administrator. Weakopedia (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest a different approach, such as asking something like, "What did you mean by how FAQ #3 is phrased? I have NPOV concerns over the use of the word "immoral." Don't you think that might help resolve your concern in a more congenial way? Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. It is FAQ, a list of frequently asked question with answers, and the question worded that way is a frequently asked question, whether or not we find it a repulsive thing to ask. No use dumbing it down when people actually ask it. Zazaban (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hello??? How about reading things in context? It's a FAQ question. It looks to me like a way of telling the kind of person who would ask this kind of question in this way that they are not particularly welcome. I had a quick look at the archives and couldn't find any question that is openly like that, so if it's a frequently asked question then I guess it's also a frequently deleted one. But I am sure it's a frequently thought question, and I guess it motivates at least some of the people who start unconstructive discussions on the talk page. Hans Adler 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec but agree with above) This concern was also brought to Jimbo's talk page, and I had a go at answering it here. I'm pretty inclined to assume that, given that we are talking about an FAQ, "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" is indeed a rough approximation of a type of Frequently Asked Question on that page. Several other editors also worked on the FAQ and did not take issue with this wording, and unfortunately it's hardly surprising that lots of people would ask this question (which is, of course, wildly homophobic). Remember that the whole point of FAQs is to answer questions, including ridiculous ones coming from a place of deep ignorance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, you 2 are being quite silly. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If people frequently ask them, yes we do. Zazaban (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, Phoenix, a more serious issue here, IMO, than your disagreement with the wording of the question is your approach to resolving your concern. Why do you feel that the correct approach is to immediately throw accusations of homophobia and intolerance here and on Jimbo's talk page without even trying to await a response from 2/0 first? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Zazaban, if that is your opinion, I see no need in discussing anything further with you. Cla68, if you think that my response is more serious, you are too biased for me to take you seriously. Phoenix of9 08:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Please. For everyone's sake including yours, for you will not last long here if you continue to jump the gun so dramatically. Zazaban (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Initially I thought Phoenix took this seriously, but now it's just indistinguishable from trolling and I am no longer sure. I suggest that we all follow WP:Deny recognition now until 2/0 gets a chance to respond. Hans Adler 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wonder what 2/0 is going to think when he shows up and sees all this crap piled up on his talk page? Zazaban (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, and until he does, could all further discussion please shuffle on over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies instead of clogging up here? Zazaban (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was an interesting thread for my morning coffee. I apologize for writing in a way that could be misconstrued as you did. I am openly bi, and I intended that FAQ question to address the not uncommon issue of people bringing their filthy prejudices to that page. If I recall correctly, I was thinking mostly of AIDS denialism and WP:ADVOCACY when I wrote that FAQ, and added the rest from scanning the talkpages and trying to think of useful questions. I see that it has received some work today - might I suggest Talk:HIV as the best place to discuss improvements in wording? Reading with an eye to your perfectly valid concerns, I am not sure that the present version is any better. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 13:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, a big thank you to all those editors who sought calmness and clarity, and to Phoenix of9 for working to fix a perceived injustice. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight

At this point, I feel that a greater community discussion is warranted concerning GoRight's editing behavior. I have started a discussion here.[10] As a possible interested party, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Trusilver 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Commented, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz (talk · contribs) edit warring to remove civil comments

2/0, sorry to bother you. I don't know what to do when outnumbered by a gang. I normally just ignore it when the gang deletes my comments, and restore the comments at my talk page, but in this case, John Quiggin has made accusations against me, and Atmoz is denying me a right to respond. If there is something wrong with my response, I'd appreciate it if someone can tell me what it is. Meanwhile, it seems fairly obvious that Atmoz is edit warring. E.g. [11] [12]. Are you able to ask him please to desist? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quit being a baby. Someone already told you what was wrong with your comments. And I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't know what e.g. stands for. -Atmoz (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've half a mind to send both of you to bed without dessert. (Half a mind is usually all I'm working with.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Boris, I'll believe that when I see the other half of your mind either restore my comment at the talk page, or remove the off topic comment that it was a response to. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If Boris was really angry, he'd send us to bed without dinner. I have zero patience for someone who has kept material in userspace for over a year while simultaneously using lack of said material as an argument to remove other content other content based on undue weight. -Atmoz (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, why not be less cryptic, and actually just, you know, tell me what you're talking about. What is "userspace"? Sorry, I've been here for a year but I'm still not fully across all Wiki jargon. What "material" are you referring to? You & I, Atmoz, should be allies. Instead, you follow me around making spiteful, cryptic edits, which appear to be designed just to annoy me. If I've done something to offend you, can you just tell me what it is? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just saw this, so thanks Atmoz. I'm very interested, now, to understand the sense in which you apparently perceive me to be hypocritical. That would be a very constructive conversation to be having I think. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I see... You've added the material from my draft into the actual article... Does it bother you that you've added it, mistakes and all, and we have no one here with ability to correct it? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in the least. That's how wikis work. Someone adds information, then someone fixes the mistakes. Ad infinitum. -Atmoz (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What posts of mine have been removed? I just looked at the lindzin talk page and am sure they are all there? mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, the principle of eventualism does not apply to BLPs. WP:BLP "...While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see #Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material)...." You have added flawed, misleading material to the biography, and I am sad to say that I fully expect it will stay there until such time as Wikipedia is either reformed, or it is taken offline. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. I'm done with you. You're clearly not bright enough to positively contribute here. I think you're being a little obtuse. Sorry to 2/0 for all the orange. -Atmoz (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, that is a personal attack. Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a conclusion I've reached based on about a years worth of data observing the particular editor. The fact that it isn't flattering does not make it a personal attack. -Atmoz (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, it is sad. Very sad. You are still young, I believe, and what I think is really sad is that I think you are just copying the behaviour of other editors in here. Yet, I am trying to work with you, Atmoz. You and I share very similar perspectives with respect to the BLPs. I know this after we chatted. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's a BLP violation you should revert it. And keep reverting it until it's kept out, you're blocked, or the page is protected. That's what you do if you truly think it's a BLP violation. But instead, it was you who have written this material, it has been in it's current state in your userspace for a year, and you haven't even deleted that. Why are you writing BLP violating material in your userspace? I doubt very, very much that you think this material violates the principle of the BLP policy. I think biographies of scientists should be about their science. Yes. I saw you editing your draft when you started it; I thought it was good. It languished as a draft, and I had forgotten about it until you linked to it on the Lindzen talk page. I read it, and thought it was good enough for inclusion. I do not see anything in the material I added that would come close to being a violation of the BLP policy. I think you don't want it added because that will take away any undue weight claims you might have, similar to the way it took away from any undue weight claims that had been previously used at the James Hansen article prior to my expanding it. -Atmoz (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, please, stop, and listen. Okay, I have shown the material to Dr. Lindzen, and he responded briefly, hinting to me that it had some errors. He left me some hints on what I might do next, and he seemed somewhat impressed that I had done so much research. He responded in the way, I suppose, you'd expect a professor to respond if he was someone's thesis advisor. He doesn't care about the biography himself; he doesn't care about what anonymous Wikipedians say about him. But I care about Wikipedia. He did give me some clues as to what I've done wrong. And no, I'm not going to share the private correspondence. Unfortunately, I am not a full time graduate student, and I don't have the time to pursue the writing of Dr. Lindzen's biography. The material is, unfortunately, too difficult for me. I got up to wave-CISK, and I realised the project was beyond me. Will you please see that I am sincere about getting things right. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So where is the response here Atmoz? Aside from the fact that you've added flawed material to the biography, you have simply created a new weight problem. This article now hides just about everything else that Lindzen really is known for: he's a world renowned expert on atmospheric dynamics. He wrote a textbook on this subject in 1990. After solving the paradox of the semi-diurnal tide, and then the quasi-biennial oscillations, he left this work behind. This was in 1970. He then went on to become a world renowned expert in other areas of atmospheric dynamics, the general circulation of the atmosphere, and cloud microphysics. The article is completely distorting Lindzen's career. Who is going to finish this I ask you? You can't. William can't. Kim can't. All other scientists sympathetic to Lindzen have been ostracised. How do you respond here? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Either take this to my talk page or to the Lindzen talk page. I doubt very much 2/0 wants this discussion here. -Atmoz (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing

OK, I looked into the matter above a little more deeply. There's an unhelpful tiff going on with both sides right and wrong to an extent. Potentially of more serious concern is the offsite canvassing; the recent EEML case is relevant here. While the venue was not hidden it is "mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience" and the appeals themselves have not neutrally worded by any reasonable standard.[13][14] I would like to ask 2/0 (or other impartial admin) whether this matter should be raised at the climate change probation board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly not particularly nice, but fundamentally I see very little that we can do about posts elsewhere on the internet. My very basic understanding of EEML (I read the world's most bizarre opening statements and eventually the final decision) is that they were acting highly unethically. Asking your friends and partisans to come support you here is a little bit dirty pool, but a far cry from actively colluding to circumvent the community standards. If people start showing up apparently out of the blue to make the same or substantively the same edits it would be worth bringing up WP:MEAT at the RE board, but I do not think that there is anything to do here. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mitsube's aggressive disruption"

Please show me the diffs that you think reflect aggressive disruption on my part. I have no idea what you were referring to here. You seem to bear me some animosity that I have done nothing to deserve. What did I ever do to offend you? I would like to make amends if I have done something amiss. Mitsube (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I know I have not been particularly active over there lately, but you continually pop up on my watchlist making edits that have the effect of skewing our pseudoscience (broadly construed) articles away from independent encyclopedic coverage towards a more credulous mere repetition of some highly questionable sources. This coupled with at least two WP:PETARD AN3 reports indicates to me a serious deficiency in your approach to editing here. I urge you as a fellow volunteer editor to please consider how you would expect a serious respected reference work to cover these topics - in full context or bare of commentary? Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to report there seems to be some intent to pursue tendentious editing at Reincarnation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

by the way

2/0, I　promised in another thread to post a correction to the comment about the disappearance of the RWP that was "deleted by andrew c" at this thread. Unfortunately, that thread was closed for comments. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, thank you for trying. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Violation of 1RR restriction by William M. Connolley.2C per Marknutley Enforcement request

Per the above, I am advising you - as the admin who closed the Marknutley request - that I have reactivated the claim in respect of WMC's violation of his CC 1RR restriction. Although you made no comment upon it at the Marknutley close, you may wish to do so here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good call - thank you for staying on top of this. Hopefully this can be closed quickly, as some of those reports are dragging out for quite some time. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

respect

Just in passing:

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For 2/0, a cool head in heated waters. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I approve of this barnstar (and its use of synechdoche). :P MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Awww, thanks :). Better, you reminded me to check my fire extinguisher - next time I do not die in a fire I will have you to thank. Now, on to baking up the last of last year's fresh frozen blueberries while simultaneously not setting the kitchen on fire. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reply

I responded to your message. Please reply. [15] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war brewing

Here might be an idea to lock it out for a few days mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I try to avoid that article, but a quick glance suggests that Macai has returned to precisely the same sort of non-constructive behavior that led to his one-month topic ban. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least it is not because of the recent expiration of the semi-protection. Meh. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mark Nutley

I want to notify you of this comment i left on Mark's talk[16]. I find that the talk-space edits may have come from a confusion by Mark on what exactly the conditions were for his conditional unblock - but i see that he has also edited article-space (more than once). I'm not seeking any sanctions - but just a general notification, that i'm going to protest if he ever asks for a conditional unblock again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim i have responded on my talk page, but please note, the article i edited was one i had just put into main space, i noticed i had missed out a letter on my copy/paste and then fixed it. Really a few seconds in this here, come on now. mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And how could you think that it was OK to create an article, when you are only allowed to edit in your user-space? And as i noted on your talk - this edit to Cao Yong is certainly not related in any way or form to your user-talk space. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again i have responded on my talk page, shall we just keep it there instead of cross posting like this? mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, take it to the enforcement page for clarification. As calmly as possible, please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Better chuck this one in as well then [17] the guy posted that i had misspelt his name so i fixed it :-( mark nutley (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Marknutley#This is not OK...., thank you everyone for remaining calm and polite. Incidentally, while as my userpage suggests I would feel silly if I blocked someone for making an unquestionably good and trivial edit, I would really appreciate not being put in that situation. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some i dotting and t crossing requested

Per the discussion here, you and I neglected to log some of our actions. I have done so for me, but wish to give you the opportunity to reach closure in this matter... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have on occasion made posts intended more as friendly advice rather than formal warnings and have intentionally not logged those, but those look like they should have been logged. And so they were, I think - [18], [19]. I think there is some confusion because you closed and acted on that request, but I archived it a few days later. More over there. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about NPA and BATTLEGROUND?

Given your concerns, these might be of interest. This, from a just-blocked editor, might be best ignored. [20] This one [21] doesn't have that excuse, and it's part of a recent pattern on his part. Maybe a discussion with him would do some good. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page removed. K = dP/(dV/V) = dP/(e_x + e_y + e_z). Note that the denominator of the rightmost expression is an invariant of the strain tensor, hence insensitive to orientation of coordinate system, as is pressure as well. This reinforces the argument that both pressure and volumetric strain are scalars, so their ratio is also a scalar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the above comment by Tibbits as an adequate reply to JohnWBarber ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page

I would like to see the anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page removed. K = dP/(dV/V) = dP/(e_x + e_y + e_z). Note that the denominator of the rightmost expression is an invariant of the strain tensor, hence insensitive to orientation of coordinate system, as is pressure as well. This reinforces the argument that both pressure and volumetric strain are scalars, so their ratio is also a scalar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Macai?

Hi You have just blocked Macai (talk · contribs) as noted here User_talk:Macai#Blocked. Can you please give some diffs supporting this action? I also see that you have banned him for two months on articles related to climate change: User_talk:Macai#Topic_ban_from_articles_related_to_climate_change. I don't see any process on the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation / Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log for this action to be justified. Nsaa (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask you the same. Typically, the process has been to raise it on the enforcement page before taking action. This action also appears to have been taken in direct response to a talk page request (above) from Boris. In any case, it seems inappropriate, and I think you should explain. ATren (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In Macai`s defence i do not think he was either edit warring not disruptive, if you look at his edit comment from his last edit of the article [22] it appears to me he was happy to accept changes being made. Also he inserted "scandel" it was removed but he did not try to reinsert it. [23] This edit is an obvious try to please all involved [24] I do not think he was edit warring at all, i would ask you rethink this topic ban and block mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

RFE against you

AN RFE was filed against you. [25] You are welcome to respond. Macai (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sanction appeal

I was instructed to make it a sanction appeal. You can find it here.[26] Macai (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I should be grateful if you could clarify which two (or more) edits were the reverts under which you imposed the sanctions, and any comment about referring your actions for review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Statement by 2over0 2, thank you. 2over0 public (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tracking changes through article moves

I notice that you're still occasionally updating my list of articles covered by the climate change probation. I'm taking a back seat (little or no involvement) at the moment and have no imminent plans to ramp up my contributions, but in a recent check I noticed the absence of recent edits to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy in the related changes. Presumably this is because the article name was recently changed and the related changes module doesn't follow redirects.

If you're still using that page to track recent edits in the probation area, perhaps you should update the moved pages to the current name (or perhaps just add the new names and retain the old ones so as to track discussions of proposed disambiguations, etc). Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added the renamed page, thank you for pointing this out. Also, thank you for creating that page - I find it extraordinarily helpful even with the caveat that it is manually maintained and may be out of date or incomplete. I cannot think of any other recently renamed pages off the top of my head, but I will keep an eye out for updates. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC Again

BLP violation against and identifiable living person Blatant Vandalism

What is to be done about this? mark nutley (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps... editors under civility paroles should not make unfounded allegations of vandalism, or indeed BLP violation? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a rightwing nut is a blp violation, and what you have inserted into the Hockey Stick Illusion is vandalism mark nutley (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Until the little furor relating to two sections above settles out, I am not taking any administrative action in the topic area of climate change. Please feel free to raise a case at WP:GS/CC/RE. Thank you for understanding, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Caleb Murdock on the attack again

His very first edit after returning is an attack. He hasn't learned anything. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Warned, thank you. Let us see if this is a spark or a fizzle. :( - 2/0 (cont.) 02:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We can only hope. Since this involves his religion, I'm not holding my breath. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this block be recorded here? I'd think the topic ban should be made complete, IOW to include the talk page. The Jane Roberts article should also be included. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, 2/0, you're as bad as Verbal and Brangifer are. You are totally biased and unethical. The response that Brangifer gave to that new user sounded almost threatening. There is clearly an attempt to scare off people who don't share your biased "skeptical" point of view. The bunch of you are creating a hostile environment on Wikipedia. This isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@BR - that page does not seem to log blocks. I am guessing that the reasoning is that people reviewing the effects of ArbCom cases and community sanctions need a centralized log, but in the case of single users it is sufficient just to look at the block log. Besides, that was an ordinary civility block, not a violation of the page ban. I think the best approach at this point is to try to work collaboratively with CM: if he takes the hand, great, the encyclopedia wins; if he continues in the vein of these last few edits and socking, I expect he will be blocked completely rather than topic banned; if he decides to edit disruptively at other articles it is easy enough to extend the page ban, but in the meantime there is no need.

@CM - thank you for your input. There is some oblique advice for you in the preceeding paragraph. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? Is it OK to remove personal attacks? You removed his personal attacks, he restored them, and he was blocked for doing so. Now he's done it again. The attacks themselves are a blockable offense in his situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments says that removing personal attacks is fine, but should be done with care. 70.etc. geolocates to the other usual location for CM, but I am not sure if it is worth the bother of a CU at this point. Honestly, I think that the best plan generally is to ignore purely unproductive comments and comment specifically on the productive parts of mixed comments. I do not see that situation going anywhere at the moment - maintain you stance as the voice of reason and be patient? - 2/0 (cont.) 05:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked for this behavior before. If we allow him to repeat it, then all is for naught. He gets away with violating our policies and attacking other editors. That's not right. It must stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

See now #Seth Material. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Both the Seth Material and Jane Roberts articles should probably be semiprotected for some time, and their talk pages somehow protected, maybe with a warning to Caleb that IP comments there that seem ducklike will be removed. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to let you know..

Hi, it's nice to see that you still make time to edit articles. I think it's important to keep editing articles so you remember what this is all about. Nice to see, hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the fun part of writing an encyclopedia ... the encyclopedia writing :). I actually have a raft of sources I meant to get to today, but I got napped hard this afternoon. On the bright side, I get to enjoy both sunrise and sunset today, both of which promise to be absolutely beautiful. Keep it wonderful. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please respond.

[27] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Seth Material

I had hoped that User:Caleb Murdock might find some way to usefully occupy himself after the topic ban from Seth Material. Unfortunately, he won't do much except quarrel with other editors at Talk:Seth Material. His latest edit is here, which restores a bunch of argumentative material. This thread had been usefully transferred from Talk:Seth Material over to User talk:Caleb Murdock by Guyonthesubway, but Caleb restores it with the message "You people have a level of nerve that's just unbelievable. Not only do you act badly, you want to hide your bad behavior." If he would confine his sarcastic comments to his own talk page I'd be willing to ignore him, but he's continuing to interfere with the article by misusing its talk page.

When I imposed the original topic ban, as a result of the above thread, I withheld a proposed indef block of Caleb on a 'wait-and-see basis'. I think I've now seen enough for such a block, but wanted to check with you first, since you filed the original complaint against Caleb at the EW noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, thanks. I had been hoping that the socking and quarrelsomeness would be confined to a low enough level to write it off as just the natural grumbling that so often happens when an editor runs head first into policy here, but I think I have seen enough. The page is still semi-protected for almost a month, but it might be worth keeping a weather eye on developments there. Good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What a joke this is. You are going to ban me forever because I restored text to a TALK PAGE??? -- text which Brangifer had no right to delete in the first place??? You people have no fairness or objectivity.

What's really happening here is that you want me to lick your asses, but I won't do it. The situation on Wikipedia is pitiful. It is over-run by control freaks who spend all day pushing other editors around, and you don't see any problem with it. Editors like Verbal and Brangifer and Guyonthesubway have turned Wikipedia into their full-time hobby. But once an editor has exhausted his knowledge, all that's left for him to do is to make trouble for other editors -- like Verbal does A-L-L--D-A-Y--L-O-N-G. But you refuse to see that. None of this would have transpired if Verbal hadn't started attacking the article -- and yes, they were attacks. He never once tried to collaborate.

Knowledge is not valued on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become a social-networking site. All I ever wanted to do was to edit the one article I cared about -- and I guarantee you, no one else has my level of knowledge of the subject. Of course, you don't see the article as worthwhile, so you don't care. I'm not the one who doesn't "get it" here. The rules are set up to encourage participation, not to facilitate the accumulation of knowledge. But participation for the sake of it has no value to the encyclopedia as a whole.

I have no respect for either of you. Your decisions have been biased from the get-go. You have consistently favored your wiki-addict pals. My only mistake was that I was too shrill in defending my positions. I have every confidence that you will make the wrong decision once again.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

South Ossetia war title

I have made a number of attempts to have the article title changed to no avail. When this war first started it was limited to South Ossetia and as such the title was legitimate. The moment it expanded beyond South Ossetia and into Abkhazia and the west coast a number of editors began suggesting the name be changed to reflect the scope of the conflict. At the time there was no clear alternative name and it was subject to such constant edit-warring that the article was move-protected. Since then the only recourse has been to have discussions on the title in the hopes of reaching of a consensus. Unfortunately, no matter how much time passes and how much stronger the case for a change gets a group of editors with an extremely biased position always flood the discussions to prevent a change.

In the most recent discussion I started on the current talk page one editor supportive of a change decided it was a lost cause because he felt any discussion would see a number of pro-Russian editors flood the discussion and prevent a consensus from being seen. So far it seems the only way this title is ever going to be changed is by an admin's decision. I gave a decent summary of the arguments for a change a few months ago here, more importantly it contains the most recent arguments for keeping, and this earlier discussion showed strong support for a change, though there was some funny business done with the discussion by a non-admin. The admin reviewing it did however say that objections based on neutrality were invalid and only left the issue of descriptiveness and common name as no consensus. However, I do not see any legitimate argument for keeping this article and plenty for changing it. This is something I am sending to a few admins who appear to have no involvement in the article or the name dispute in the hopes of getting some authoritative position on the current title. If you can think of any admins who might be more interested in this then feel free to say--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I hope you don't mind that I reopened the discussion. I feel that we should try to resolve this at ANI and it is worth keeping it open a while longer. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a-okay, thanks. My opinion stands that that discussion is pointing towards an RFC/U, but best of luck there. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vote Removal

Maybe it was an accident, but why did you remove the user votes I added to the latest section? As per WP:TPO, resectioning is a valid reason to move a user's comment, and it was explicitly stated when this move request was opened, that votes from the previous request would count. I merely collapsed the old section to remove some pointless bickering about alternate names, and moved downwards those who had not already reexpressed their vote Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why we have discussions at Wikipedia rather than votes - people are expected to express their reasons and consider and address the concerns of other editors. Discussion veering in a productive direction is reason to applaud the consenus-building process, not open a new discussion. Given that the second move request was opened four days after the first one opened, it would be even more of a breach of process to fail to consider the opinions in both. Anyway, both discussions at Talk:Chernobyl disaster have been closed now, so no harm done either way. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Duh - I can't believe I forgot to remove the speedy tag after I moved User:Moswento/For DYK. Thanks for cleaning up my mess.--Kubigula (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh - I will just count it as partial repayment to the community for the time I deleted and then restored a bunch of userpages at the user's request ... but left the speedy tags on and had to re-undelete them a few hours later. ttfn, - 2/0 (cont.) 12:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

My thanks to the folks who have been reverting the recent spate of sock vandalism here. I just set up User talk:2over0/opentalk in case this page needs temporary semi-protection. Right now I do not think it does (hence not doing it myself), but if it ever gets out of hand anyone should feel free to semi-protect this page for a brief period and let me know. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do I have any Commons-active TPWs?

Measles cases reported in the United States before and after introduction of the vaccine.

I just uploaded my first image to commons (pictured at right; PD so no worries about including it in talkspace) - if someone who does more work at Commons feels like checking it out I would appreciate it. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

I removed them when I realized I was in the wrong. Thank you for the help! Blindeffigy (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Disturbance at an article under AFD discussion

Can you please take a look at this:

User WMC has reverted a page under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_Audit_(2nd_nomination). We don't discuss the deletion of the redirect, we discuss the deletion of the full content, and since he changes this under the ongoing discussion it distort the priors arguments and it's a combative behavior. Is this a blocking reason and should I go further with it? Nsaa (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but for reason of wanting to enjoy my hobby I am avoiding all climate change related areas until at least the tenth of next month. There was a discussion at the AfD talkpage a few months ago (I think that was my most recent contribution over there) that I believe came to the conclusion that merging during a live AfD could be disruptive. I am not sure that we covered the issue of AfDing a long-standing redirect, though, so it may not be applicable. Just glancing at that issue, it looks like it would have been better to start a spinout discussion at the merge target, as that article cannot be deleted for attribution reasons. Detailing what content was and should be at the blog article but would overburden the author article would bolster your argument. The severely underutilized Climate change task force page could be a good place to attract knowledgeable uninvolved editors, as the issue pertains to organization and presentation of material in that topic area. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, hope you are well. I know you are staying away from all the climate control stuff but I thought you may want to at least watch this. I have to say, what is going on at the sanction page and other talk pages is nothing I've ever seen before. It's getting totally weird! You made the right decision to back off of everything and enjoy writing articles again. Anyways, I thought you would want to know about this. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up :). Next step - figure out how to have a collegial and productive editing environment. Blocking someone for saying "crap" but not for making crap edits is sure not the way to do it. Civility paroles and other complex editing restrictions seem to have a poor-to-mixed track record, but being too liberal with topic bans would be a desolate peace. Maybe by the time (if) I get back there there will have been at least one request that provides full and proper context and analysis from the outset. Ah well, back to suppressing the great Truth that the Noether's theorem is only a theory. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is a problem with how to go forward there. I think this whole thing has taken a very strange direction. I think you should also be aware of the following since you are the one who put the editor under the sanction here. This editor has made a comment at the RFC here. Though there is conversation on TGL talk page about the sanction and a notation on the RFC I thought that you might be interested in responding in some way about all of this. I have to admit that I was surprised that the comments weren't removed or action taken for breaching the sanction but that is not up to me to decide. I hope my bringing this to your attentions isn't causing you stress of any kind because I know you are trying to stay away from all of it. That being said, I think you have the right to at least be told about it in case you do feel you need to do or say something.

On a different note, isn't the weather lately wonderful! What a weird winter we had. I've lived in FL my whole life and the weather we've experienced is just plain weird. When we had all those hurricanes I thought it was also strange. Wilma was the worst for us down here. Wilma took a huge palm tree in front of our front door and snapped it in half like it was a toothpick. It was scary esp. since we couldn't get out our front door until the tree was cut up and there was no other way of getting out of the apartment other than climbing out a window. :) We now live in our on condo which we love. What do you think of that oil spill in the Gulf? I wonder how long it is going to take until it hits the FL coast? I am still amazed that the oil company BP didn't have a plan for emergencies like this. I am also amazed that there is still calls for putting up more platforms in off out coast. You can bet if that gets started in earnest that hubby and I and probably my mother will be active to stop any attempts to put any oil companies off our coast. I think this oil leak proves that there shouldn't be any. Well I'm babbling a bit, sorry. I hope the above is helpful. If not interested, as usual, just ignore if you aren't interested in getting reinvolved in all of that. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So you know I put up a comment about this here on the talk page of the RFC. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry there's more about this here. I think you are going to have to comment, at least here about things. Again, sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoo, nellie - that is a lot to read. Thank you for letting me know about this - I would be remiss to ignore matters in which I am already involved even when taking a break from that cesspit. My first reaction is that I am very uncomfortable barring anyone from any dispute resolution process; the reason for the talkpage ban was to avoid a situation where TGL remained involved by proxy. Obviously he can still email folks or blog about it or whatever, but even if we could prevent such things, I have a strong moral stance against censorship.

I have not caught up on that situation yet (hence posting here instead of there; it may be tomorrow before I do, though), but as a preliminary position I think we can trust that Lar is not going to proxy for a banned user; whether those discussions crossed the line from chewing the fat about an interesting scientific/sociopolitical problem into our articles should look like this would require a closer look. Discussion at the RfC/U that could be seen as in violation of TGL's ban probably does not belong at that page anyway, though again that would require a closer look.

Thanks again, and best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Again I am really sorry to tell you all of this stuff since I know you sincerely want to stay away from it. If you do want to comment though may I suggest you leave a little note there telling them that you are catching up on things? It looks as though they are about to close it off, and soon. Just a suggestion, hope you are well too, again sorry,--CrohnieGal^Talk 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "Twenty Two Points of Ulema"

Dear Sir: Through speedy deletion, you deleted the article Twenty Two Points of Ulema, I added on Wikipedia The allegation made is that it was “Unambiguous copyright infringement" of “http://www.voice.pk/?p=1939”. I strongly feel that the material I placed in the article is not “ copyright infringement” of any sort (including G12) and thus it does not become a valid candidate for deletion. I explain my viewpoint here:

• The “22 points” is not copyrighted material. It is not even an intellectual property of the website “http://www.voice.pk”. The website has reproduced it only beacause it is an importat document of the political history of Pakistan.
• As explained in the introduction of the article, 22 points were actually a demand made from the representative Ulema of all the Muslim sects of Pakistan. This demand was presented to the first constituent assembly of Pakistan, regarding drafting and adopting the constitution for Pakistan.
• As far as my understanding is concerned such demands, by their very nature, are public properties and never considered as copyrighted material.
• 22 points demand was presented to constituent assembly in 1950, and is a historical document. Its importance regarding the evolution of the constitutional process in Pakistan makes it a proper choice to be part of Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia already rightly contains such historical documents, for example Fourteen Points of Jinnah. It is a 14 point demand made by Jinnah from the then British government of India. Like this document, my document is also not copyrighted, on the rational I explained above.

I hope you will consider my arguments and will allow me to reconstruct the page you have deleted.

If there is some error in my understanding regarding copyright issue, or any other, please guide me. Looking forward for your advice. Bhaur (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you for contacting me. I am not a copyright scholar, but the linked page asserts "Copyright © 2010 Voice of Pakistan." I am woefully unfamiliar with this area of history, but please allow me a few hours to see if I can figure out the best course from here. You might also want to consider Wikisource for the points and scholars themselves with a sourced discussion of impact at or linked from History of Pakistan or one of that family of articles. You may also present your case at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the propmpt response. As per your advice, I have presented my case at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I am adding the following tag as per instructions of the Wikipedia:Deletion review. Regards. Bhaur (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Twenty Two Points of Ulema

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Twenty Two Points of Ulema. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bhaur (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on deletion review page. I have responded in detail on the review page. Here I only want to say that the original was in Urdu, so the English translation is, of course, copyrighted. Please do not restore the page. First let me get the original Urdu, and translate it in English myself. I’ll put it on your talk page. Then I’ll request you to restore, or allow me to reconstruct the page. Thanks. Bhaur (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that that is a fantastic idea. Please note that if the original is still under copyright, I believe that translation rights are reserved (though I freely admit that international copyright law in 1950 is far from my speciality). Once you are ready, there is no barrier to just creating a new article at the same title. The Wikipedia software will let you know that you are creating an article at a pagename that has been deleted, but since you know why it was deleted you can just ignore that. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Latent homophiles

([28]) Given the angst occasioned by Old-Fruitgate, it may be wise to refrain from implying that other editors are latent homophiles. :P MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what it means at all, you sicko. Homofilly is a term for the innocent beauty of lesbian love among young centaurs. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds wholesome. But I know you're making that up. If it were a real paraphilia, then we'd have a 5,000-word Wikipedia article on it. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

The shared IP I'm contacting you from has been responsible for vandalism after vandalism over the years. I was talking with the most recent person to post a warning about a potential block earlier, and he said I should talk to an admin about it. In particular, I'm wondering if IPs can be permabanned; but anything that stops the people using this IP from vandalizing works. --204.96.143.178 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking

Re[29], are you sure "evasion" is the right word? To me it implies sockpuppetry, or at least sneakiness. I don't want to see the guy pegged for something he didn't do. How about simply "violating" his ban? Signed, Mr. Language Person aka Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not thinking that, but on reflection I think you may be right - thank you. I am pretty sure that there is a way to work in a pun on evasion, but like a Blink dog in an SEP field, it eludes me at the moment. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, picking just the right term can be as tough as chewing a vegetarian's hat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

US dates

So 2010-11-07 is 11 July or 7 November? Probably best to spell out. --BozMo talk 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I use the One True Date Format where alphabetical and chronological order are the same. I specified the duration, thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing Issues

Whenever I try to edit under my Wikipedia account (in this case, Shatterheart), I get a message about opening a PHP file; this also happens whenever I try to edit something in the general Wikianswers hub (under my main Wikia account, Protostealth). Can you help me with this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.72.119 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot know for sure, but my guess is that you need to check the security settings for your browser (they should be under Settings → Preferences or Tools → Options or something like that). Wikipedia pages are dynamically rendered (see Wikipedia#Software and hardware) so that when you are logged in it can serve the correct appearance for your preferences. Do you also receive this message with other webpages built on the PHP framework or otherwise dynamically rendered? Purely for the sake of rational paranoia, you should also check for malware; you should not take the word of a random stranger on the internet, but download.cnet.com/ should have something that fits your system. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of FellGleaming

Hello 2over0. FellGleaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  17:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Review

Please look at the article on Diamond Cutters International & Fred Cuellar. I do not feel that it should be included, unless there is a complete section on the fraud this company committed and the conviction that Mr. Cuellar recieved. This company & individual has no importance other than a felony criminal record http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1998/06/08/story3.html and extensive civil action taken against Mr. Cuellar & Canary Investments DBA Diamond Cutters International. Please review http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=6476 The full civil & criminal history are available online from Harris County District Clerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford Dunster (talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Medieval warming period edit war

Just wondering, why was FellGleaming the only one blocked for edit warring at that article? I see several other editors involved in that edit war. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Haabet#Blocked. Please also look at the image description page and the article talkpage. Oh, and now a Scibaby - do you see any more of those popping up in the last few hours? That one was registered not quite two hours ago, and there might be more just getting into their swing. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone explain to FellGleaming that the graph might be a nonsense graphic made by Scibaby? I can't imagine that he woud have readded the graph if someone would have explained that to him. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, I have been happy to work with you in a number of AfD discussions over the years. You have shown an admirable ability to seek out and understand sources and a dedication to ensuring that our coverage is the best possible. Please do me the courtesy of reading the relevant history here; the above comment strongly suggests that you may have confused some of the participants. If you would like to suggest that there may have been better ways to serve the encyclopedia in this particular instance, I would be happy to listen to your reasoning. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it was about six months or so ago that I unknowingly restored a Scibaby edit to an article (I don't remember which article). Several editors here and on Wikipedia Review explained to me why it was obvioiusly a Scibaby edit and how to tell in the future and I wasn't blocked for it. So, having myself been tricked once, I'm wondering if the same level of education was provided to FellGleaming. Cla68 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish FellGleeming all the best but I have to say he is lucky to still be editing. If it hadn't been for an out of process enforcement request against him (that I opposed on principle even though I was involved in a major disagreement with him) he may have been facing a long ban. Defense of him as a new editor is not really necessary. Polargeo (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla, all you have to do is read the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla, don't bother appealing to 2/0, he's been handing out one-sided sanctions for months and shows no signs of stopping, even as he's critical of Lar, who has sanctioned no one. ATren (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good advice. ATren. You have no idea how much I would back you up if you stopped being so partisan. Polargeo (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, I have {{welcome}}d Scibaby to Wikipedia four times that I can recall offhand, most recently about three weeks ago. Scibaby is completely irrelevant to this particular situation other than jumping in to stir up a little ill will and edit warring. This is not merely a case of WP:DENY, the clearly tagged sockpuppet did not even edit that article until just after I had blocked the other two editors. I think it would be a great idea to share your accumulated wisdom with FellGleaming, both regarding Scibaby (keeping in mind WP:BEANS, of course) and regarding keeping cool when the editing gets hot. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

2/0, I see one revert on that page from FellGleaming. I see NO recent discussion on article talk before FG's edit.^{I misread the history, there was one comment from WMC} I see no warnings from you to FG, on the talk page or his user talk. So one revert in the absence of any warning or other action, and he gets blocked? Please explain, as I'm sure I must have missed something here. ATren (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In what fantasy world is it not It is edit warring to revert, without discussion, an inarguably poor edit that was previously undone twice and was contested on the talk page without actually editing the talk page and engaging in the discussion?. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion on talk when FG made his single revert. Please let 2/0 answer. ATren (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ATren and Hipocrite, both of you please cleave to a higher standard of civility here. In general also would be nice, but especially here.

ATren, please look at the edit history of that article and check the talkpage again. Please also consider that I may be aware of recent onsite discussions concerning FellGleaming and may have taken those into account in deciding whether to block or warn. This clearly fits the definition of WP:EW even at first glance, and even more clearly falls under WP:GSCC, which I cited in my blocking statement. I would also like to point you to the image in question (it looks like Commons does not delete things for seven days), which cites no source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and edit warring over a questionably sourced image is simply not acceptable. If you would like to render your advice for how I might have better served the encyclopedia in this or any other instance, I would be happy to listen to your reasoning. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my incivil entry and have struk it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion on talk when FG made his single revert - this is false William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I misread the history. I've struck that point. I still believe a single revert with explanation in the edit comment is not grounds for a block, especially when there were no prior warnings. ATren (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FG was blind-reverting in rubbish, presumably for POV reasons - there are no others. Had he apologised, then things mught be different. Why don't you take a look at the graph itself, see if you can see any problems with it - elementary precautions, which FG failed to follow, but you could William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You asked, and I assume honestly, "If you would like to render your advice for how I might have better served the encyclopedia in this or any other instance, I would be happy to listen to your reasoning." I'd like to provide such. You have not tried topic banning the following editors from global warming for any period, all at the same time - WMC, Kim, Polargeo, Myself, Ratel, Guettarda, Atren, Cla68, FelGleaming, Heyitspeter, Nsaa, Marknutley and Zulu Papa 5. There is no reason not to try giving this large swath of editors (and any whom I forgot/missed/whatever) a one week break from the topic area and see what happenes. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for striking that, Hipocrite, I appreciate it.

Thank you also for your suggestion. For the sake of thought experiment, they might also be added Stephan Schulz, Yopienso, ChrisO, and a few others depending on precisely how you would define the vacation criteria (number of edits in the topic area? limited to the last month? excluding reverts of obvious vandalism and sockpuppets, presumably. weighted by percent of edits/effort to other areas of the encyclopedia?) A literal reading of the WP:GSCC page would support your suggested course of action, but I have my doubts that the community would support it were I to take such an action unilaterally. Mediation leading to a MAD détente would be an option, but pragmatically I do not see it working. This would also have the regrettable consequence of, from a game theoretic standpoint ignoring the personalities involved, encouraging sockpuppetry even more than Wikipedia's current model does.

Crohnie has suggested sweeping full protection with active monitoring on {{editprotected}}. This runs afoul of the anyone can edit founding principle, but I fear that may be the direction we are headed, by encroachment if not by design. One of the problems in this topic area that argues for your solution is the tendency of editors to move to a new battleground instead of seeking consensus on a protected article. Off2riorob (I believe) suggested that we record the participants whenever an article is protected due to edit warring, with an eye to identifying and sanctioning the people who repeatedly revert instead of debating, especially once it should be clear to any reasonable editor that their change will be immediately reverted. So long as it is not applied naïvely, I think I may be leaning in that direction now. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who Yopienso is, so I wouldn't include him in a broad topic ban trial. The other two were obvious oversights. My criteria was "editors whose time is being wasted by other editors on the list, and as such should have no concerns with a broad topic banning." IE - since there's obviously no forward progress made on any of the articles, everyone should realize banning everyone is the status-quo. I oppose Crohnie's sweeping full protection, as anyone can edit. I support Off2riorob's suggestion that anyone who reverts something that will obviously just get re-reverted should be blocked, while editors who report such reverts but refrain from themselves reverting should be "rewarded" by having their preferred version enmeshed in stone while the block exists. This would likley cut edit warring to zero, though it would involve multiple "revert and block" or "revert and protects." Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I see my name in here and wonder why. Is someone suggesting I be banned? If so, why? If not, what is being suggested? Yopienso (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Yopienso, do not worry - I just included your name in the list of people who make a bunch of edits to articles covered by the climate change probation. Hipocrite (among others) is tired of the incessant squabbling that takes place around those articles, and we were kicking around a thought experiment of forcing an editorial reboot so new people can start fresh discussions. From the little I have seen, you seem a fine editor, and there is anyway zero chance of a discussion here reaching community consensus. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Re [30]: thanks. It is nice to know there is someone competent in this probation area William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just reading through the page dotting the i's a crossing the h's. I wish I had an opinion on the LHvU thread, but Idonwanna read the AN/I thread. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Investigate Problems on BP (British Petroleum) Wikipedia Page: Intentionally Burying Section on Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, Changing Name of Oil Disaster to Hide it

Any attempts to correct this (following reasonable Wikipedia guidelines) are met with aggressive reverts and edits. Intentional spinning and manipulation of article in favor of BP? Can this task force investigate this?

Currently there is no easily recognizable section on the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, surprisingly since the US Government has held BP responsible. Instead the "Oil Disaster" Section in the article keeps being given obscure (hard to recognize) names (as if someone is trying to hide the section from the public).

That section also keeps getting pushed to the bottom of the article (attempts to bury it)?

It's as if the BP Public Relations department has staff people who are aggressively spinning the article. Could this Task Force investigate this?

75.71.192.54 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.179.110 (talk)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic controversy and criticism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - I am notifying you because you participated in the original AfD. DigitalC (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Commented, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus close?

Lar would rather you didn't see this [31] so I'd better point it out William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How would WMC know what I'd rather, or didn't rather? Personally I'd rather you DID see it. Although it's not where WMC put it any more. Since he seemed rather insistent, he got blocked. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The passive voice is to be avoided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that you chose to focus on that particular aspect of my missive. I'll endeavour to do better in that regard going forward. Now if only WMC would take your advice as readily. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar - I just unblocked WMC, as I think there is a good faith argument that you are too WP:INVOLVED here. Please allow a few minutes while I request review at WP:AN/I. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See you over there. I'll be making the case that a) it was not a "cool down block" as there was no particular incivility involved, it was a block for edit warring and being disruptive on the enforcement page, and b) I'm not involved. That WMC bears me animus (way easily shown) is irrelevant and not a disqualification to acting, since I bear him none. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well seems like following the section rules (process) might preempt faith assumptions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Eastman, Georgia

Whatever you were attempting to do to Eastman, Georgia, you also removed 3 links that were valid and not part of any "copyright violation". I restored the links, please be more careful in the future. Mjrmtg (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Manual talkback

Inside your collapsed section here. Don't hesitate to delete this once you've seen it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There had been no comments to that thread lately, and there seemed a rough consensus that there is no need to pursue sanctions at this point. Check ChrisO's talkpage for my request for care and caution accompanying my notice that the thread had been closed. There were issues raised in the enforcement thread that were not cited in the earlier blocking rationale, but at least for my part I thought that they were closely enough related that an additional block would be more punitive than preventative, and not sufficiently pervasive to warrant investigating a wider sanction. I think there is a good chance that we would have agreed that some sanction was warranted had ChrisO not just been blocked for an essentially related issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I removed the word "further" from your collapse summary?--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine - I think the discussion stands on its own if anyone needs to refer back to it. Mentioning this discussion in your edit summary should avoid any potential drama. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting all of my work

I'm disappointed, upset, angry, and probably some other things for all of my work being deleted, Dodge County High School, Georgia 4-H, Eastman, Georgia, and some other minor pages. Work that I've been gathering the past week for hours upon no end. Not all of the work that I uploaded to the pages I fixed or added stuff was copyrighted material. I know now that I need to reword stuff for the future though. For one thing about the Dodge County High School page. The article that was written there, I wrote, when I was in high school. I have no idea how to properly site it since it was from a website. But there it goes, gets deleted. Along with random pages that I fixed a few sentences or paragraphs and fixed source links. I give up. I'm afraid to add anything else because of fear of deletion because of the now bad reputation that my name has because of this incident. I don't know what to do. I have read all the new beginners editing things on Wikipedia, so I know what to do. I'm just scared to do it for fear of being blocked, when I shouldn't feel like that at all. I'm not even sure if I want to go back through all of that trouble retyping everything back out and finding all the sources again. Tamer of hope (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are genuinely interested in helping write a quality encyclopedia, but copying material from copyrighted sources detracts from that goal. If you stick to summarizing multiple sources without copying or close paraphrasing, I really would not worry about it - many people make a few mistakes in their first few days here before going on to become some of our best contributors. Your contributions may still be viewed by clicking My contributions at the top of the page. It should be relatively simple to filter out the copyrighted material from the positive contributions.

If you retain the copyright to the article you added to Dodge County High School, you can release the material under a CC-BY-SA license; see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information. More likely, the school holds the copyright, but they might be willing to release it under a compatible license. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it possible to put something on here in your own words, then show where you got the source from then have it all deleted because one thing might have been wrong? To me it seems much easier to write something and not put the sources on there, because those pages get away with not being caught by bots. I'm not even sure how to begin to getting a license of copyright from my school for that article. Tamer of hope (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Georgia 4-H

Why exactly did you revert all of this work? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_4-H&diff=prev&oldid=362964403 There is no copyright violation in adding a template and filling in the blanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me how I can report you for unnecessary full revertions? Thanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Major portions of both of those edits were copied directly from sources making a credible assertion of copyright. Please read the relevant policy at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you would like to restore the portions that you verify do not violate copyright, please feel free to do so; it is also likely that those are reliable sources suitable for being cited as references in those articles.

Archive notice: Mjrmtg performed a little cleanup on another editor's WP:COPYVIO addition, but to my knowledge has not added any such material. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia:Copyright violations page and nowhere does it say that an edit needs to be reverted like you did here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_4-H&diff=prev&oldid=362964403 when the whole edit was not a WP:COPYVIO addition. Why did you revert the whole thing when a template was added? The same thing with this reverted edit you made on the Eastman, Georgia page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastman,_Georgia&diff=prev&oldid=362965826 You reverted links that were added, those links were not a WP:COPYVIO. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for opinion

I draw your attention to [32]. I don't think that reflects your opinion, or the balance of opinion on the RFE page. I invite your opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That close does not reflect my opinion, though I assume that it was taken into account; based on the evidence submitted, personal perusal of the relevant recent history, and the extremely minimal amount of prior dispute resolution attempted, that is not a result I would suggest. I read that discussion as lacking in consensus, especially given the uncharacteristic lack of evidenced care in some of the opinions rendered. The remit of these sanctions has also been discussed before as only extending to restrictions lasting one year or less. The lack of consensus is not so marginal, though, that I would overturn that close unilaterally, and I would feel obligated to enforce it as written unless formally withdrawn.

As a side note, the structure of the CC probation explicitly does not require consensus before action, though once more than one uninvolved person has opined I would consider it highly impolite to act absent one.

Per a few sections up on this page, I am avoiding the climate change probation for a few weeks to avoid any appearance of impropriety while I prepare and file an RfC. Several people opined back in January that the community should review progress in the area after a few months, so it would seem about that time. If you would like to appeal this sanction, please carefully, clearly, and neutrally present your case at AN/I with an eye to attracting comment from uninvolved users. Given the volume of verbiage the CC-RfE board regulars are capable of generating, it might also be a good idea to establish separate involved and uninvolved sections or something along those lines. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchy

Fair enough. The fact remains, there are serious policy problems with this article and Hammy seems to think he owns the page, and ignores any attempts to discuss the problems. It is frustrating. But i appreciate your point. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you unblock without contacting blocking admin?

2/0, admins should contact the blocking admin before unblocking, should they not? There's no evidence you did so. Please reverse your action. ATren (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you were referring to 2/0's unblock of WMC, it's cool, I was already on his talk page anyway and I'm not going to stand on formal notice being required in exactly the right place. If something else, then carry on. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already requested a review at AN/I. He should have contacted you first, particularly for such a short block which would have expired soon anyways. ATren (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I continue to respect your attempts to play a moderating role, and none of my comments mean to disparage your participation. I just think you are as involved as Lar. A bit more lawyerly, but probably as opinionated on the problematic editors if not more so.

There is the question: should admins exert social pressure in order to do their jobs, or only issue sanctions? By my reading Lar is trying to use a broader palate, all for the same purpose of encouraging a better editing environment. I suppose it comes back to bite him when editors then claim he is showing "bias," except to the extent I must say I've seen those claims to be self-evidently transparent, given that views about who is being disruptive and how are exactly what admins are empowered to decide. So should admins instead simply play the robot as if they take no stake in what is happening? If so, I think it would only be another sign of a highly factionalized environment. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, and for your thoughts. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hammy

Is Hammy's 24 hr. block a blanket block, or just a block from editing the patriarchy article? If it is a general block, then I think that this is a block evasion. FYI I have added comments to the talk page of the patriarchy article but have not been editing the article itself, in my own attempt to cool don a bit. I hope my edits to the talk page are conciliatory and constructive; you can judge. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:DUCK, thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Necrat

After asking Necrat not to post on my talk page again (what I figure is the best way to get rid of any conflict with him), he does so anyway (and admits sockpuppetry, but that is neither here nor there). It wouldn't have been a big deal if he hadn't moments later posted this on this user page. Clearly this is about me, just not using my name and clearly shouldn't be allowed. I got in trouble for this as a newbie when I put a list of "Editors to Stay Away From" (or something like that) on my userpage. Got busted for it. This shouldn't be allowed and the only reason I bring this to your attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just revert, disengage, and ignore, please. Abandoning one account and starting another is usually not sockpuppetry. They should not have posted to your talkpage after you requested that they not, but neither is a single instance worth worrying about. To anyone who has not traced recent editing history, I doubt that that post could be connected with you. WP:USER is widely permissive and, while not the nicest thing I have ever read, I do not think that it falls afoul of WP:UP#POLEMIC. I recommend waiting a few days and then politely asking if Necrat would be willing to delete or amend their userpage; if that fails and you still feel strongly about it, you may want to consider WP:MFD. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, will do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, at RFAR

I've mentioned your behavior in my comments at the Arbcom requests page, here [33] (meant to tell you this earlier, sorry). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I had read your comments as contributing to an atmosphere of highly partisan bickering, but can accept that you acted with intent to improve the encyclopedia. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am working on an RfC on GSCC (link a few sections up) if you feel like commenting there. It should go live at some point this weekend. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

- *sigh* —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESB60 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment/Climate change probation

I have started working on a Request for comment requesting community review of the Climate change general sanctions; the working draft is at User:2over0/GSCC RfC. I would appreciate help framing and evidencing the question of whether the extraordinary sanctions are currently necessary. Feel free to edit this page and discuss it at the talkpage, though no formal endorsements should be made until the page is "live". If you would like to be notified when the discussion is moved to projectspace, please leave a note on the talkpage there. Until I abandon this project or the discussion concludes, I will undertake no probation-related admin activities. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is live now at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma

You realize, of course, that this makes you part of the conspiracy. 1/2 :) Naraht (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it makes a nice break from suppressing The Truth that high temperature superconductors are just a conspiracy perpetrated by the materials science community so we can get some of those sweet, sweet NIH dollars. I was going to say that my undergrad did not even have a chapter, but apparently they do. hnh. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the conspiracy was that room temperature high temperature superconductors were being surpressed by the government. Oh, well. Wow, managing to get through college without knowing what social fraternities were on campus. That's impressive. Naraht (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to make any suggestions that would further inflame the discussion on this page, but would you consider reverting the page to where it was on 13:17, 12 April 2010 by 24.183.219.119. All of the edit warring began with the subsequent edit. Thanks - --Enos733 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see wisdom in that, and it would be consistent with the protection policy. There seem to have been several good edits since then, though, and I would not want to presume to decree which they might be. If there is consensus at the talkpage that this reboot would be a better course, please use {{editprotected}} or ask me. I think that there are enough reasonable editors at that article that the remaining issues can be dealt with using the current state as the basis. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Section added at your RfC

I'm not very familiar with RfCs. If you think there's something inappropriate about what I added here [34] (if it somehow falls outside the RfC or would mess it up in some way), please tell me and I'll look into changing it or I'll withdraw it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that that level of comment and proposal is exactly what I was hoping for in setting this up. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

busybusybusy

It looks like I am going to be more than normally busy this week, possibly extending to mid-June. I will try to check in daily or so, but please understand if I am not able to offer prompt response. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 05:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nudge

The AfD at Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism closed with no consensus to delete. DigitalC (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. RL is shoveling ordure onto my plate at a bit of a clip at the moment, but examining the potential for reorganization in that family of articles should make a nice break this weekend or next. Reception by the modern medical community is a trifle unwieldy, but is fairly descriptive of most of what is left after merging with History and Palmer. Ponder, ponder. 2over0 public (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I dare you...

... to replace our current article on the "MMR vaccine controversy" with this graphical representation. (Come to think of it, the comic is actually more complete and informative than our article...) MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

After you, my dear Alphonse (haha - with my sock account I am safe from that link). How about if I just get around to uploading that graph of confirmed cases and vaccination rate over the last decade and a half, instead. Pro tip - all data looks pretty much the same to shoulder surfers. 2over0 public (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New Article

Hi! I have just created my first article. Can you please look over it? Thanks Gabithefirst (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Direct Quote

My apologies, I didn't see the second bit of the edit when I reverted. It was incorrect of me to say that he claimed that he struggled to get hits. The bit I would like to change is that the Times article 'claimed' instead of 'suggested'. Saying 'suggested' seems to lend weight and credence to the opinion and anecdote of the author, yet if it were stated to be a claim of the journalist, I believe that this would be more neutral Valyard (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. I actually see suggested as weaker - that source is not dealing even in journalistic standards of actual proof. I merged two paragraphs in that section to deal with hot and cold reading in the same paragraph. Feel free to just revert and start a section at Talk:John Edward if that does not work for you. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a balanced solution, thank you Valyard (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you around editing! :)

Hi, I've seen you now on a couple of articles on my watchlist. It's good to see you editing like, well, an editor.:) What you are doing now I think is much better than being at that sanction board. I suspect that you are a lot happier too. I hope you are well. Keep up the good work. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Massive agreement there. As I said somewhere or another, I wash my hands of that situation. I can delete copyvios here and revert POV-pushers there, but to steal a phrase from MastCell, I am off the case for the foreseeable future.

I found out the other day that apparently some people actually read the comments to online news stories, to the extent that a friend of mine installed a FireFox extension to strip them so he would not get distracted and then driven to distraction. Even weirder, a couple of my acquaintance have incorporated finding bizarre and offensive comments into their flirting. I wonder if I should point them to the RfE timesink. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good for you to leave that behind and find something interesting and fun to do, at least I hope you are having fun now. I know the project is serious but that doesn't mean we can't have fun while we edit. :) As for sending others over to the time sink, I think there are enough editors there to fill the space there without anyone else added to the mix. I have been watching that page for a while now as you know and I am amazed at what goes on there. Do yourself a favor and stay far away from all of it. I know you will enjoy yourself more plus you won't need any sedatives or anti anxiety meds to calm your nerves. ;) Seriously though, keep up what you are doing and have fun doing it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby

Thanks for taking care of User:SamsX. He was reverting warnings and tags so quickly I wasn't sure what to do... Yworo (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Any time. There is usually a thread for Scibaby open at WP:SPI. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Hey! I'm currently dealing with two articles which are undoubtedly infringing on copyrights. Soon after tagging the articles for G12, the author posted an OTRS template on the talk page but it's been about 12 hours and no case number has been added. I haven't dealt much with OTRS tickets but I was wondering how long it usually takes for a ticket number to be posted on an article. From what I've seen, it's very fast. I want to make sure that a crafty editor hasn't placed the tag in the hopes that the deletion tags will just go away. Do you have any knowledge of how this works? It's apparently a very closed off section of Wikipedia so I'm having trouble getting information or find a good place to ask questions. Any help would be appreciated. OlYeller^Talktome 04:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS can either be extremely quick or take a very long time. I'd be happy to help you out though; could you point me to the appropriate articles? NW (Talk) 04:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, speaking of OTRS: 2over0, have you considered helping out with OTRS emails? NW (Talk) 04:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the articles in question are US Arab Chamber of Commerce and American Cosmetics Manufacturers Association, both of which I skipped on my latest round through G12. Honestly, OlYeller, I have no idea - I saw that you were on top of those articles and thought great, I have seen that editor around and they seem full of clue, I will go worry about something else instead.

The thought had vaguely crossed my mind, NW, thanks for the spur on actually checking it out. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, full of clue. Love it. That's them and thanks for checking them out. OlYeller^Talktome 04:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to remove the hangon this morning but Guy went ahead and deleted the pages. OlYeller^Talktome 15:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As both were deleted per G11 as well, I don't know if it is worthwhile to search through the open tickets for this permission. Someone will probably eventually get to it while cleaning out the backlog and make the determination then. NW (Talk) 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of a new page: help

Dear sir/madam,

I understand that you may be the administrator who decided that the new page I created somehow is a copyright infringement of some sort and should be deleted.

Please help me understand what it is specifically that you believe my page is in violation of.

I am the Deputy Commissioner of the Maryland Collegiate Baseball League. We are a non-profit summer baseball league and have been since 2007 when the league was formed.

Please help.

Thanks.

Roy Snyder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starflight7 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the article you posted earlier, Maryland Collegiate Baseball League. Unfortunately, it appeared to be substantively the same as the league homepage; it may not have been copyright infringement in the usual sense if you helped write the original material, but that page does not indicate its copyright status, which defaults to all rights reserved. Wikipedia articles are licensed by WP:CC-BY-SA, a Creative Commons license that allows for redistribution by third parties for pretty much any purpose, including commercial use, without prior consultation or recompense. Please see also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you control the material at that site, the simplest way to release it under a compatible license is simply to put a notice of copyright on the relevant pages. Please be aware, though, that any such release will apply to use and re-use by anyone and everyone, not just Wikipedia; moreover, the article here will be edited and will in time come to no longer reflect the original text.

There is a secondary concern, in that articles here need to focus on summarizing how topics have been treated in independent reliable sources, such as newspapers and trade publications, and should not be unduly self-promoting. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article for some more helpful advice on getting into the swing of encyclopedia writing. Happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Enforcement?

Not sure if this appropriate, but you closed the last AN3 report with a warning, yet the WP:SPA continues to be disruptive without seeking consensus. There was an active discussion on the talk page that they refused to constructively participate in yet when the PP expired, they continued on inserting contentious content. I'm not sure what is appropriate in this case. I filed a second AN3 report that references the one you closed, but if the appropriate thing to do would have been to report it somewhere else, please let me know. Thanks for the help. jhe_iv (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you look at the Administrator's Noticeboard discussion and more closely scrutinize User:Jheiv's WP:COI/WP:OWN editing and edit-warring, 2over0. To edit-war with someone and then use one's knowledge of rules to push uninvolved editors from articles (as Jheiv is doing) is not good. Jheiv is even reverting other administrators in his drive to protect his fraternity's article. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This was a reasonable request, but I am afraid I do not have much Wikipedia time at the moment. EdJohnston generally has good judgement at AN3, and has protected the article now. Please discuss and come to some consensus at the talkpage, preferably with recourse to seeking outside input as recommended in WP:Dispute resolution. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Could use your advise

Hi 2/0, there is a weird situation brewing that needs some help already. A SPI case has been open for awhile now without any checkusers or clerks looking at it. I am aware that they are short on help here but this needs to be checked already to stop the socking we all know she is doing. If you look at the comments made by the multiple IP's you will see that it is SkagitRiverQueen who is doing the editing, esp. in the two articles like Charles Karel Bouley and Margaret Clark. SRQ is following her usual pattern of edits and following User:DocOfSoc around like she did prior to her block/ban. If you read the comments in the edit summaries and the talk page at the Bouley article you will see that the same statements SRQ made against DOS are the same as the new editors are doing. SRQ is using her cell phone for most of her editing because she found out on Wikipedia Review that the cells IP change so frequently that it's hard if not impossible to locate the socking offender. I find it very disturbing that she should be allowed to edit like this and that the sock investigation has not been looked at. Do you know of any checkusers that can look at this case and give us a yes or no or something about all of this. Editors are getting very frustrated about this so I thought maybe you could help with you wisdom. :) Seriously, I don't want to let things get out of control. It's really hard to tell sometimes if it is SRQ and at other times it's totally obvious that it is her to those editors who had to deal with her in the past. I'm hoping you have some good ideas for this one. <at least I didn't come asking for help about the cc articles! :)> Thanks for anything you can do to help and if you can't that's ok too. You're a good guy in my book either way. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The most recent Scibaby round at SPI took about a month to resolve, though I am not sure how much of that is due to scarce resources and how much to that case getting bumped down the allocation ladder due to WP:DUCK. It is late here and I am afraid my Wikipedia time is pretty limited this week, but glancing at the issue it looks like a case for semi-protection (I have not checked whether that has already been applied) + WP:RBI with an edit summary mentioning WP:SOCK. Unless you find a pattern amenable to regex an edit filter, make sure that disruption is boring is unfortunately about all we can do with highly dynamic IP harassment until it gets bad enough to involve the ISP or law enforcement. I cannot comment on the merits of the case at the moment, but I promise to look through the relevant contributions later to start training my neural net on a new sockpuppeteer.

The only CU I really communicated with significantly was Lar, who resigned his tools a few months back to work as an ombudsman, so I am afraid I cannot help out there. Glancing over the list, they seem the helpful bunch you would expect. Vassyana (talk · contribs) or Tznkai (talk · contribs) might be good bets for a personal appeal, though I fear I do not actually know them well enough to advise.

If there is a good list of candidate articles for semi-protection, feel free to list it here. I subscribe to the RSS feed for this page, but an email usually gets my notice first. Good luck and commiserations, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate your thoughtful advice. The two articles last I looked were semi protected to stop her harrassing an editor she likes to get after. I'd appreciate it when you have time to take a look at what the rest of us are seeing. I fear that we maybe too close to make a call on some. I think so far we are right on, I just don't want us to see her at every article because a new editor arrives type of thing. I will see if the SPI case gets some attentions soon if not I'll try Vassyanna. I forgot he was CU. I too only communicated with Lar so I would like to know other's in the CU if you know what I mean. She is being a royal pain along the same lines as Scibaby, even with the digs at editors not liked. I am always astounded at how someone would be so interested as to sock day in and out even though they get caught and reverted. What kind of sick humor is that?! Anyways, thanks for you time, your good advice and anyting else you can think of in the future. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

True that there probably isn't much we can do aside from periodic semi-protection of some articles and blocking socks as they show up. Nevertheless, at the moment this user's main account is set to come back to normal editing privileges at the end of a year-long ban. I think it's imperative to get an indefinite ban on the record for a user that's socking in violation of the ban, and prevent the ban from simply expiring when it was originally set to. The user can't be allowed to return after doing this. As far as I'm concerned, my only goals with this SPI are to obtain that official declaration, plus getting something on the record that the socking is occurring, to make it easier to get future socks blocked and articles protected when needed. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:17, 2 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to reduce tempest in a teapot at CC RfC

In light of:

• this at ZP's page
• ZP's page
• Lar's comment (which comes and goes)

would it make sense to clarify the statement in the RFC: Please do not edit others' View by sections except to add an endorsement. Threaded discussion should take place at the talkpage.

To emphasize that endorsements should be short, possibly contain caveats to indicate something short of compete agreement, but should not be used as an excuse to make a different point?

I am sure that is the intention, but not everyone is following it.--SPhilbrickT 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ENDORSE ... editors should stay in thier section, please. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note. No special exceptions or warnings have been needed. This has now been dealt with quite efficiently. Thanks everyone. Polargeo (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Looks to me like it has settled down as well, but ZuluPapa's point was valid.--SPhilbrickT 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I expect that at least one of the sections at the RfC talkpage should be able to accomodate any lingering issues. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim Joyce

I believe that the word controversy should not be used in the article on Jim Joyce. It has \emph{clearly} been shown that the call was incorrect. There is no controversy whatsoever. I would make the change myself, but it is protected. 130.49.162.77 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:Jim Joyce. If necessary, please follow the steps recommended at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to arrive at a consensus of editors at that page. I am nominally a Cubs fan, especially in losing seasons, but my personal ability to judge between reliable sources in baseball is generally circumscribed by my lack of experience with the subject. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{tb|CIreland}}

{{tb|CIreland}}

Archive link: User talk:CIreland#AN3. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving me ideas

Ah you need to be careful of putting ideas in my head. Joking of course. :) Thanks for the encouragement.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bach Flower Remedies

Hi There,

I think the recent page move you did on this article to Bach flower remedy is an inappropriate application of WP:SINGULAR. The Bach Flower system is a set of 38 remedies to be used as a group, and as a system is pretty much universally referred to in the plural. If you do a google search for the phrase 'Bach Flower Remedy', this wikipedia page is the only result that comes back with the singluar phrase. All the other results on the first page use the plural. The only place you routinely see the singular used is for Rescue Remedy, which is a specific combination of the remedies that is sold as a distinctive product (and indeed outsells all the basic remedies put together).

I think the usage here is more akin to say 'Power Rangers', where yes you can say Power Ranger singular, but in common usage they are a group are always refered to in the plural as there is a group of them, which is how the wikipedia page is named. (Sorry for the odd analogy, that and Transformers were all I could think of off the top of my head!)

I hope that makes sense, thanks. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can buy that logic, thank you. Move reverted. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for listening and understanding my badly typed example! --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I could use your opinion

Hi, I'm not sure if it's your opinion I need or just some support to be honest with you. There is a big dispute going on between three editors. I just got this message left for me. I am not a meat puppet of anyone. This editor has accused about a half a dozen editors of being meat puppets of Wildhartlivie. He accuses her of even worse things. I need to know if his bad faith that he just repeated on my talk page is allowable. I responded to the message as honest as I could but without breaking my own feelings about things. WHL is my friend and I've never denied this. But that being said we all shouldn't have to be accused of being meat puppets or sock puppets like what has been going on lately. I am trying to make peace but it's really hard to when the conversation starts out so negative. If you look at Chowbok's history you will easily find what I am talking about. This is just the latest. The last couple of days have been bad. I'd appreciate your advice or even a comment at my talk page. I have a lot of respect for you which is why I've come to you now. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Fences and Windows has done about everything that can be said here except a plea for calm I just left for Doc9871 (right or not, I think their comments at your talkpage today are not very likely to lead to an amicable solution) ... although I confess that those discussions made my eyes glaze over a little. Everyone involved seems to be a long term dedicated productive contributor with occasional nips from the drama bug. Your response to Chowbok on your talkpage seems to have been exactly the best solution - calmly explain your point of view and remain open to further discussion. You are good that way :).

On a slightly related note, do you (or any helpful TPWs) know of a contributions filtering script? I use Ale_jrb's userhist script to filter article history for a particular editor, but I do not currently have anything that filters out WP:AWB or other semi-automated edits. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I do wish that F&W was even handed with the warnings. Were you? Did you warn Chowbok for starting a thread like that? This is the problem that is going on. In Doc's defense, he is frustated because this is going on at multiple pages now. I may have answered him correctly, but I thought about how to respond to that after I got passed being really pissed off to be honest. No one should be going to others and say you are this or that (some negative thing) and asking them to prove they are not. It was easy for me to prove because I know why I do things at this project and know that I only get involved in things when I have something to say. But the uneven warnings are looking bad to some and I think that it allows the drama to continue. If everyone who is rude is told to cut it out maybe then the drama would stop. Just thought I point this out.

As to your other question the only thing I got lately that has really been useful in copyright violatons. Maybe you should ask Xeno. He runs some bots and does a lot of script type stuff. I'm not good at that type of thing to be honest. I hope someone else can help you with this better than I just did. :) Be well, talk soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Captain Occam while Arb Con case in progress

You have blocked Captain Occam. This is problematic because he is a central figure in a current case before Arb Con. Without his active participation, it will be hard/impossible for the case to proceed. Would you mind unblocking him until the case is over? If he still behaves poorly, you could, obviously, block him again at that point. David.Kane (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest something similar - that is, unblocking Captain Occam conditionally (solely to participate in the ArbCom case for the 2-week block duration). Otherwise, he won't have the opportunity to present evidence or contribute to an ArbCom case where he's a central figure. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the block; although I think he's generally disruptive, I can't find anything recent to suggest that it's getting worse. In any case, I commented that, if he wants to present evidence, he can create a section of his talk page, and something will be done to get it into the Evidence section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I had not realized just how central Captain Occam is to that case, so it would be unfair to deny them participation. Thank you for your offer of copying evidence, Arthur Rubin, but I have unblocked to allow access to the case pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That will allow the case to proceed. By the way, I am no expert in blocking policy, but shouldn't two things have happened before Occam was blocked? First, an administrator should have warned if that behaviors X, Y and Z would lead to a block if he continued them. Second, the blocking notice itself should provide diffs to specific edits he recently made that are unacceptable. Without such a clear description, there is no way for Occam to know what to change about his behavior once the block is over. David.Kane (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi 2/0. I'm brand new to the R&I page, having just started editing it to try to smooth out the controversy and NPOV it up a bit, so I'm not familiar with the extended history. But when I first started editing there a few days ago, it seemed at first that Captain Occam was blindly reverting without discussion or responding to comments (he in fact reverted most of my edits). But in the past couple days, it seemed he came around and was discussing productively, and working toward compromise. So I think the block was poorly timed in that it seemed from my perspective like he was starting to contribute in the desired manner. Just thought I'd throw that out in his defense, for what it's worth. He has potential, go light. WavePart (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WavePart. I have agreed with Occam in parts and disagreed with him in parts. One could make a fair case that his behavior 6 months or so ago was unhelpful. But, in the last 6 months, I have seen nothing untoward in his behavior. Now, you could certainly make the case that he and other editors at R&I could be more polite and that, therefore, banning for two weeks all the less-than-really-polite editors would be a good idea, but such a ban would cover more editors than just Occam. David.Kane (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• I glanced over at Captain Occam's page out of curiosity, and what I saw (User_talk:Captain_Occam#Blocked_3) for your reasoning was just alphabet soup that I'd expect to see from a wikilaywer, and no specific details were provided even after three specific requests. The only reasoning provided after the third request was a vague point towards the R&I article and an evasive hand wave to "normal channels" to appeal. I realize that you're used to working in areas where ArbCom has specifically authorized discretionary sanctions (WP:SANCTIONS in pseudoscience and climate change), but this block is actually out of process; WP:DSN is specifically a failed proposal, and you lack the authority to impose this sanction. Even if WP:DSN was not failed, your sanction falls far below the reasonable standards suggested in that process. Even under a very loose interpretation of consensus (e.g., majority), this block has already failed judging by this talk page, and you should revoke it completely.

  The communication issue is more important, I think. Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability bullet 3, citing a well-worded ArbCom case, specifically notes communication such as warnings and specific reasoning are an important part of the administrative process. Could you explain why you decided to be evasive in justifying the block? II | (t - c) 03:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:2over0, speaking as an editor who has been watching the History of the race and intelligence controversy article and the associated Arbcom case from the sidelines with increasing unease I was surprised and disturbed by your block of Captain Occam, particularly in the middle of an Arbcom case about the matter. Captain Occam's edits of late have seemed to me be of a reasonable nature and he is very far from being the worst behaved editor in the dispute. I am also concerned at suggestions that due process has not been followed. In order to preserve the confidence of Wikipedians that justice is being done in this case would it be possible for you expand in more detail the diffs and the considerations that led you to block Captain Occam? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC).

The fact that this block was instituted without much knowledge of the Arbcom proceedings indicates that it was objectively done. I would have preferred the software restrictions to remain in place, because as is evident, Occam has already posted a thread on Jimbo Wales' page, in direct violation of his restrictions. Clearly an attempt to seek sympathy from Mr. Wales in order to override this block, a very clever move. Wouldn't it be possible for Captain Occam to post his contributions to Arbcom on his own talk page. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)