Revision as of 22:01, 7 June 2008

I'm fairly busy in the Real World at the moment. Expect delays here... or not. But it's my excuse anyway...

If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.

Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question.

The Holding Pen

Is empty!

Current

8.2 kiloyear event

Would you agree with re-naming the 8.2 kiloyear event to Misox oscillation, since this is the name given to this event by Heinrich Zoller in 1960 (see German article Misox-Schwankung)? —Bender235 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean to Misox? Oh no. Its universally known as 8.2 kyr. Why change to an unknown name ? Who is Heinrich Zoller anyway? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Heinrich Zoller was a Swiss botanist who first discovered (and named) the Misox and Piora oscillation. But you're probably right, the term Misox oscillation is not well known among English speaking scientists. I just felt uncomfortable with the fact that there are dozens of variations of that 8.2 kiloyear event name, like "8,200 year event", "8.2 ka event", "8,200 cal. BP event", "8,200 years cooling event", and so on. —Bender235 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I'm used to "8.2 kyr event". At least its descriptive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

more socks, it seems

The 76.102.72.153 IP is obviously either G33 or Supergreenred; the one resolving to a Knology.net DNS is probably someone else (that ISP serves the southwestern US, rather out of G33's area). Olwae is rather obviously a sock/SPA given his choice of subjects and what he's been doing. You'd think G33/Supergreenred would be smart enough not to spawn even more socks during an arbcom case about them. Jtrainor (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The anons don't matter because the page should be semi (its a bit annoying that after full prot it always drops down to none. Ah well). Olawe... well; doesn't seem to have garnered much sympathy. Its funny how all these "newbies" know about the unblock template, isn't it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The amusing part about Olawe is that if G33 and his hangers-on complain on WP:ANI again it'll look rather suspicious. Jtrainor (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you two are on about. Olawe might well be an SPA (though it's kind of hard to tell after only 6 edits on article and talk pages), but I guess the rule now is any new account that comes to that page is blocked so long as they are on Giovanni's side of the debate and make some sort of reversion. Not sure what gives you the right to do that considering you are part of the content dispute, but knock yourself out. I'm fairly certain that account is not Giovanni which should be rather obvious from the writing style. But I guess even when people who are not Giovanni edit that is Giovanni's fault too. What about the editor in the southwestern US? I didn't know about them, but I hope they are blocked post-haste!

WMC, is it your contention that you are not "involved" in a content dispute at that article? If so you will have to really wow me with your rationale for non-involvement. I'm quite convinced you are involved. I'm sure you are well aware of this section of the blocking policy which says, "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." If you'll admit to involvement, how exactly is it that you justify violating this rule repeatedly? This isn't a BLP issue so that won't fly. Is there a particular reason why you feel it is okay for you to block editors with whom you are disputing? What's so hard about dropping a note over an AN/I, forgetting about it, and waiting to see what happens? I would never dream of using the tools on this article and see no reason why it's okay for you to do so. (Hint: "because it's a crap article" or "to clean up this mess" or "because we need to stop these SPA's" are not correct answers).

This sock hysteria, no matter how justified, has gone a bit too far for me. You might both want to take a look at section (or aphorism number) 146 in Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. Very wise words, though in recent years too many people are familiar with this passage so it's unfortunately become a bit cliche. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This view has been expressed by Bigtimepeace in various places. I respect Bigtimepeace's enthusiasm for admin standards. When I started as an admin I did a few unblocks of improperly warned vandals etc and had a similar zeal. As a very recent admin I don't think he/she has yet realised how boring it really gets with endless reincarnations of very very complaining SPA editors. Not hysteria, just a sad sigh. For what its worth I agree you count as not involved if you go in without an axe to grind on problem articles and make changes. If you are just taking out non WP:RS stuff both ways I don't this this should count as content dispute but the policy keeps shifting. However at some very grey point this might change depending on whether you start taking a view and getting too into the subject. I dread to think what would happen to some of the articles here if you didn't hang around and fight the rubbish, which I don't have the appetite to do. I also am inclined to think that the protests would be more and claims of CABAL louder if you asked other admins to do the blocks. On the occasions I have stumbled across ones and done them it has been very boring listening to accusations that we "have edited the same pages" so "I am involved because I have come across you before" etc. On balance you do more than the rest of us and I am inclined to think people who haven't done as much for WP as you shouldn't condemn likely. --BozMo talk 08:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC).

Either we have rules about when admins do and don't block or we don't have such rules. The rules do not apply to some folks and not others based on who "does more" "on balance." For the record, while WMC may have been neutral when he came to the article and while that neutrality can last for awhile if the admin actually stays neutral, he has since then: 1) Deleted large amounts of content, when consensus for deletion was not remotely clear 2) Protected the page and made large content changes (basically deletions) while protected 3) Voted to delete the article at AfD 4) Blocked at least 2 or 3 users with whom he was disputing 5) Repeatedly posted to the talk page arguing for one side in the dispute 6) Advocated for a long term block of a user with whom he is disputing on that article on the basis of sockpuppetry 7) Regularly derided a number of editors on one side of the debate but not the other. If I am still an admin 5, 10, or 20 years from now I imagine I will call that "involved." If you have an explanation for how that does not constitute involvement in a dispute than I would truly love to hear it (in part because it would mean that I have never been in a dispute before!).

I see absolutely no logic in the claim that "protests would be more and claims of CABAL louder if you asked other admins to do the blocks." I'm sure sometimes that could happen, but it's more than a little counterintuitive that a user would yell more loudly about being blocked by an admin they have never heard of than one with whom they are disputing. If you really feel that way BozMo, you might want to suggest a change in the block policy whereby you must be involved in a dispute in order to be able to block. Because that's basically the policy implication of your argument. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Come now, Bigtimepeace, you can't deny that there is a long, long history of accounts that suddenly show up out of nowhere, revert to G33's preferred version, and then resolve to California IPs when checkusered. I didn't just spot a newbie and then immediately decided "Hmm, G33 sock", I looked at his contribs and his edit summaries. The only reason I havn't filed a checkuser yet is because I wanna wait and see what this latest account does. Jtrainor (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea BTP. How about even more of this... you can only block people at Misplaced Pages if you have already edited there enough to become an admi... oh hang on we already do that. Anyway if you have time you could tell me what you think the dispute is and which side you think WMC was on? (Is it pro government and antigovernment or something?) Then I will return the compliment by having another look. --BozMo talk 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, I see no words or actions from you against the SPAs that have plagued this article to the tune of 20 identical reverts since 5/09, only words against the admin who is trying to protect the project. G33's socks/meats (argue all you want they are not socks, but they are 100% SPA meats in behavior, that is mechanically provable), have pushed this community to the edge. If you can make an argument that they are editing productively, I'd like to see that; otherwise, please assist in combating their disruption. - Merzbow (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is not a bureacracy. People constantly forget this and is it necessary to remind people of "don't let the rules get in the way of doing what is right" William M. Connolley (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a bureaucracy that says its not a bureaucracy not a bureaucracy? That seems only nominally correct. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To BozMo... Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have mistaken this for Bozmo's talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of Olawe

Hi. I've unblocked Olawe (talk · contribs) for the reasons I have provided on his talk page. Because I believe his block to have been in manifest contravention of WP:BP, I have not contacted you about this block beforehand. That's not to say it was wrong to block him, only that he should not have been blocked by you. Best,  Sandstein  20:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If he returns to disrupt, I'll block him again. However, since he is an SPA and the article is now protected, we won't be hearing from him for a while so the issue is moot William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he's Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) come back in violation of his ban. Article choice, english language and some phrasing/phrases. Too late for checkuser though so we'll have to wait for a few more edits. Look at Bmedleys first contributions and Olawe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s and note the language difficulties and article choice. --DHeyward (talk)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I thought it had already happened. My motion makes no sense otherwise :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

Actually, Will, the 3RR noticeboard isn't the place to make a report. I have reposted your report at:

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

If I've messed anything up, please feel free to comment further. John Smith's (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Giovanni has refuted denied your allegation that his second edit was a revert - you may want to explain things in more depth. John Smith's (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Like many other people you misuse "refute". It doesn't mean "denied" :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops - corrected! John Smith's (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Just for the sake of accuracy: I'm not a native English speaker but according to Merriam-Webster you actually can say "refuted your allegation" (etc):

1  : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2  : to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>

But maybe I am not seeing some additional context here.
— Apis (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

1 is the correct meaning. 2 is the mistake people often make William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW Fowler's "Modern English Usage" supports WMC on this. "One can refute a suggestion only by producing evidence, till then one can only deny it". Of course dictionaries (as oft pointed out) list common misuse as definition too. --BozMo talk 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I shall keep that in mind.
— Apis (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Another source. Basically the "new meaning" is pretty recent. It seems to only be associated with "allegations" and the ambiguity of truth in both the refutation and allegation is probably why politicians invented it. In any event, the phrase "refuted the allegations" can only be interpreted as "denied" and "denied" has less letters so please help conserve the internet. --DHeyward (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Community topic ban

I'm sick of this. Time to go to ANI and request Olawe and DG be topic-banned from "Allegations..." and related articles, broadly construed? ArbCom will almost certainly banhammer them but that will take 3 more weeks. - Merzbow (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, hold on, SGR has now shown up; I've listed the page for full-protection again and will make sure nobody talks the protecting admin out of it this time. If for some bizarre reason the full-prot is declined then maybe we have to go this route. - Merzbow (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you want the page protected. It doesn't help. As usual, socks like SGR are being given yet more "final warnings" instead of timely blocks. Ah well. Arbcomm grinds on I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't view my actions as assertive enough to be satisfactory, but there is an ongoing arbcom case, which to me means that most of the admins looking at this have probably been administrating longer than I have been editing. I'm still not altogether sure why s/he *this particular account* hasn't been indefed already (along with at least one or two others), but I figured I was missing something somewhere in the MB of text surrounding this mess. R. Baley (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(FYI there's an ANI on this now.) I suggested at the ANI an editing ban that restricts the SPAs to the case for its duration. I of course would have no objection to somebody just blocking them all outright as well. Barring that, I see no alternative to full prot, lest they continued to be allowed to abuse the article. - Merzbow (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This goes nowhere for the obvious reasons: given the arbcomm case people are afraid to do anything, and think its better to let the arbcomm grind slowly away instead. Admins are too feeble in blocking people that need it; RB, I'd argue you need to be more confident of your judgements (no I'm not calling you feeble). People are far too ready to protect articles uselessly instead of blocking the malefactors William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Zero/Nukular/SoD/SoD/N4G/IWS/Grimlight appeal

Looks like nobody's notified you yet, so... Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FSevenOfDiamonds. - Merzbow (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tempted to write that people will never learn, but one person has. I haven't commented since I don't have anything new to say; I'm pretty sure it will be rejected William M. Connolley (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And once more, with feeling... - Merzbow (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Brings utter pointlessness to a new level. If the arbs had wanted to do this, they would have passed the old one William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

you recently removed my, rightfully, warning and suggestion i placed on User_talk:ScienceApologist. i feel that admins shouldn't take sides if a user violates wiki rules MULTIPLE times (please see the HUGE block log of this user). the warnings were appropiate and i don't understand why you seem to "protect" this user and removed the warnings. please give me a reasonable explanation for your actions. thx and regards SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)