Revision as of 00:14, 30 December 2009 editMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →A proud milestone in any admin's career: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:38, 30 December 2009 edit undoTedder (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators62,266 edits →arbitration notification: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 302: | Line 302: | ||
Is the first accusation of bias leveled at you by someone you've blocked? ''Sniff...'' they grow up so fast... :P ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | Is the first accusation of bias leveled at you by someone you've blocked? ''Sniff...'' they grow up so fast... :P ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
== arbitration notification == | |||
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— | |||
* ]; | |||
* ]. | |||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> | |||
and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. ] (]) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:38, 30 December 2009
24 December 2024 |
|
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2over0. |
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 17 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Welcome!
Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Block of Brittainia
You site the abuse of multiple accounts as one of the reasons for blocking Brittania. Was there an SPI investigation? If so can you please direct me to it. If not, can you please justify the claim? --GoRight (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is perfectly appropriate, thank you. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive77#Ramses and Brittainia RFCU - sockpuppeting confirmed. Do you think I should include the link with the blocking templates? - 2/0 (cont.) 01:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Up to you. What precipitated this action, was it the vote mentioned below? Do we know which is the main account for this user? --GoRight (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, this is from when they were after Uber. I see that this claim/confirmation of sock puppetry was made by Raul654, so I would like to have this independently confirmed since Raul had to give up his checkuser privileges after it was determined that he had abused them. How would I go about doing that? --GoRight (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure. Probably WP:SPI; I could add a correction to the block log if that came back negative. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would be pointless - they confirmed editing from the same computer with the explanation that they were a family. So there is no doubt that a checkuser would have confirmed that they were the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but I have already submitted the request. . --GoRight (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- There's no "perhaps" about it -- "they" freely admitted it. And you're allowed to withdraw the request: doing so would remove an unnecessary burden from the people who work WP:SPI. (Assuming that you care about such things.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but I have already submitted the request. . --GoRight (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, this is from when they were after Uber. I see that this claim/confirmation of sock puppetry was made by Raul654, so I would like to have this independently confirmed since Raul had to give up his checkuser privileges after it was determined that he had abused them. How would I go about doing that? --GoRight (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Up to you. What precipitated this action, was it the vote mentioned below? Do we know which is the main account for this user? --GoRight (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, then I request a review of this user's vote here, and a determination of whether the vote should stand, or not, since it was obviously made prior to the block and it remains unclear whether that vote is considered to be an abusive one. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris mentioned a couple threads up and at User talk:Brittainia that the two were the same. As they have been editing in the same area, I requested clarification at talk:SBHB. The other reasons, in my opinion, justify the block in themselves, which is why I indefinitely blocked both accounts instead of waiting for clarification or an assurance that they would use only one account. If one account asks to be unblocked and provides reasonable assurance that they will abide by site policies, I would not object to an uninvolved admin unblocking after a review of their contributions.
- I was not aware that the contribution had been stricken. As voting is evil and User:Rameses has not edited that page, I think that the comment should stand with the note. I will go see if KDP is ok with this. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- What specifically is the request - that we "unstrike" and just leave the note? I have no specific grundges about that, but we should also note that she wasn't part of the discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Its not as much a question of voting as a notice so that we can weight consensus amongst editors (which he/she isn't any more). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would say either leave it as in the link above or, better, {{collapse}} the sub-discussion after the note that the user has been blocked. Striking, to my mind, should be reserved for cases where both accounts comment on the same discussion or for certain long-term highly abusive sock puppeteers. I would like to back off that article and let Beeblebrox and editprotected do their thing, but that is my 2¢. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- This seems sensible to me. --GoRight (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would say either leave it as in the link above or, better, {{collapse}} the sub-discussion after the note that the user has been blocked. Striking, to my mind, should be reserved for cases where both accounts comment on the same discussion or for certain long-term highly abusive sock puppeteers. I would like to back off that article and let Beeblebrox and editprotected do their thing, but that is my 2¢. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
bold edit at Lindzen
and . You appear to be an uninvolved admin, here. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not quite cynical enough to protect an article on suspicion of future edit warring, but I will extend some serious good faith with respect to blanking so much of that article. Please get your proposal to the talkpage soonest. Remember that you removed the smoking and the fees and expenses sections as well, at least some of which needs to go in the new, improved, and not very long delayed version. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- The expenses & fees section is also tripe (recall, Lindzen, apparently, did some sort of contracting in the mid 1990s for the fossil fuel industry, in some unspecified capacity, and hasn't taken money since, to the tune of $10,000, probably enough to reduce a mortage by about 1%. No one, AFAIK, knows what he did, and no one, as far as I can see, even cares. I sent Ross Gelbspan, the journalist responsible for this shady piece of history, an email asking him for some more detail and he ignored me). It has been likewise the subject of vast amounts of edit-warring, wasted discussions, and as you correctly pointed out, wasted WP bandwidth. Whilst the expenses & fees section remains in the article the article will continue to function as a troll magnet. I can put together 100 words, as I said, to include what is historically relevant, but as you can see, the WP climate change gang isn't going to accept it. I need support from an uninvolved admin. Of course, you're probably not going to be viewed as uninvolved any more. :( Alex Harvey (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mind you, I may be amenable to a compromise on the Gelbspan allegation, if enough previously uninvolved people disagree with me that it is not historically relevant (I just hate the idea that we're actually creating history here... which of course we are...), and your in principle support for a seriously cut-down version of the article could also help to end the conflict there... Alex Harvey (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have not checked the sources, but if the contracting is so minor you might try cutting to a sentence in Career or asking at WP:NPOV/N how it should be weighted. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mind you, I may be amenable to a compromise on the Gelbspan allegation, if enough previously uninvolved people disagree with me that it is not historically relevant (I just hate the idea that we're actually creating history here... which of course we are...), and your in principle support for a seriously cut-down version of the article could also help to end the conflict there... Alex Harvey (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Potential edit war at Scientific opinion on climate change -- moved here from my talk
You wrote:
- Please try not to edit war right after an article leaves protection; diff. Could you please in the future make explicit reference to a specific talkpage section when making reverts at that article, starting a discussion if necessary? Please note that NPOVD is an essay, while WP:EW is policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have not edit warred on that page. WMC and others have. They have been gaming the POV tags for weeks, even though there is an ongoing POV discussion. Please redirect your warning to the users who are causing the problems. ATren (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, regarding this edit, there was no consensus on talk to remove the tag, I looked. Did you request clarification from WMC? ATren (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, you warned Nigelj as well, even though he hasn't been warring there either. Why are the non-warring editors getting warnings while others get a pass? ATren (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am trying to keep disruption at that article to a bare minimum by reminding everyone that having the lock off is not a free pass to go back to edit warring. If you have a better suggestion besides locking the article again or blocking about a dozen people, please suggest it. You are probably in the upper quarter of calm editors at that article, and I value your input. Hipocrite has made a POV-check request, perhaps that will help. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome
Isn't being an admin fun? MastCell 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, hush - shouldn't you be off hiding the truth that modern pharmacology is a sinister plot by a sentient telepathic AIDS virus to turn us all into the perfect hosts? On a more serious note, I will always welcome any advice or suggestions if you think I could be approaching some matter better, here or on email. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you don't mind that I re-protected scientific opinion on climate change - it was physically painful to see edit summaries like (paraphrased): "RV STOP EDIT-WARRING!" I admire your willingness to roll up your sleeves and get involved in adminning those articles, and I feel really good about your RfA since you've immediately stepped up to do the sort of work that is badly needed. It's actually really informative to see how other people handle situations like this one. MastCell 19:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, CC is one of those topics that I find to be just a tad too hot ;) Getting involved in it would also take away time from building my Fluidyne engine and 'underwater ready' Binishell habitat. Now if only we could devise a way to extract work from all that raging. Personal anecdote: A few years ago I was working as a divemaster on a picturesque island, one of the clients happened to be a contributor to the IPCC, it was in fact this guy. He told me 2 things which I believe that he believed 1. The only way to stop the development would be through active filtering and sequestration of atmospheric co2 and 2. That it would be unlikely to be discussed seriously by those who could bring it about for 'obvious reasons'. We all seem to just be passing time, waiting impatiently for the moment where we can exchange the uncertainty regarding best course of action with certainty of impotence. I know I am ;) Unomi (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Does that mean that geoengineering is sildenafil for the climate? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, CC is one of those topics that I find to be just a tad too hot ;) Getting involved in it would also take away time from building my Fluidyne engine and 'underwater ready' Binishell habitat. Now if only we could devise a way to extract work from all that raging. Personal anecdote: A few years ago I was working as a divemaster on a picturesque island, one of the clients happened to be a contributor to the IPCC, it was in fact this guy. He told me 2 things which I believe that he believed 1. The only way to stop the development would be through active filtering and sequestration of atmospheric co2 and 2. That it would be unlikely to be discussed seriously by those who could bring it about for 'obvious reasons'. We all seem to just be passing time, waiting impatiently for the moment where we can exchange the uncertainty regarding best course of action with certainty of impotence. I know I am ;) Unomi (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you don't mind that I re-protected scientific opinion on climate change - it was physically painful to see edit summaries like (paraphrased): "RV STOP EDIT-WARRING!" I admire your willingness to roll up your sleeves and get involved in adminning those articles, and I feel really good about your RfA since you've immediately stepped up to do the sort of work that is badly needed. It's actually really informative to see how other people handle situations like this one. MastCell 19:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
need help
Hello! I have a question to ask you. I have nominated an article to be deleted but want to opinions of neutral editors, as all people who participate in it are politically involved and attached to the subject. How can this be done? And who makes the final decision is an article is to be deleted or not? Who does the deleting? Danz23 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- In general, deletion discussions remain open for seven days before being closed by an uninvolved administrator. The decision is made based on the relevant policies, and is not a vote. LadyofShalott added Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Persian-speakers of Iran to a couple deletion sorting lists; these lists are monitored by people who might be interested in the discussion but are not necessarily involved at the article. You might also try neutrally bringing the discussion to the attention of Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Iran; please be aware, though, of the canvassing guideline.
- I have not checked to see if this has been done already, but if you have a reasonable suspicion that someone is editing from more than one account, you should follow the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry.
- By the way - this is a fine place to come with such questions, but I am somewhat curious what led you here in particular. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Occupied Territories
Hey 2/0. Thanks for your comments in Talk:Occupied_territories. I left a response for you. NickCT (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Replied there, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Protection at SOoCC
Unless you are prepared to block those who remove the POV template, as other administrators have been reluctant to do, I recommend extending the protection. Any changes that have consensus can be edit protected in, as you know. --GoRight (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Disclaimer: This is NOT an attempt to hoodwink 2/0 into being my meat puppet.
- Heh. Verbal chat 20:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, if you let the protection expire, I would suggest summarily blocking anyone who either adds or removes any template. Both are equally silly at this point - the article is actively being editing (a little too actively, if anything), so there's really no place for templates. The content templates are intended to attract editors to fix problems they might otherwise overlook - for instance, {{unsourced}} populates Category:Articles_lacking_sources, which can be patrolled by anyone with time on their hands and a desire to improve unsourced articles. Instead, the template has become an end unto itself. If you turn it into a third rail, then people might (emphasis on might) actually redirect their energies to the actual content of the article with one less bone of intractable contention to distract them. MastCell 21:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- If I am actually an AI, does WP:MEAT still apply? What about if I upload into a non-biological substrate? - 2/0 (cont.) 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. It occurs to me I should have included a reference to why I included my disclaimer, so here it is . Just in case you were unawarez. --GoRight (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- If I am actually an AI, does WP:MEAT still apply? What about if I upload into a non-biological substrate? - 2/0 (cont.) 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, if you let the protection expire, I would suggest summarily blocking anyone who either adds or removes any template. Both are equally silly at this point - the article is actively being editing (a little too actively, if anything), so there's really no place for templates. The content templates are intended to attract editors to fix problems they might otherwise overlook - for instance, {{unsourced}} populates Category:Articles_lacking_sources, which can be patrolled by anyone with time on their hands and a desire to improve unsourced articles. Instead, the template has become an end unto itself. If you turn it into a third rail, then people might (emphasis on might) actually redirect their energies to the actual content of the article with one less bone of intractable contention to distract them. MastCell 21:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did see that (and vaguely think that there is a better earlier link, but no worries), but thank you for pointing it out. I would be faintly surprised if there are not relevant links that I have missed. Are "unawarez" illegal attention-impairing software? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. It is a deadly virus/worm that attacks self-aware AI systems. :) --GoRight (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did see that (and vaguely think that there is a better earlier link, but no worries), but thank you for pointing it out. I would be faintly surprised if there are not relevant links that I have missed. Are "unawarez" illegal attention-impairing software? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You were somewhat over-active in archiving . Proposal #2 is still current (people have been adding their votes recently) and still relevant to the existing discussion. I've restored just that section William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct, thank you. The bot would have archived that one had I not temporarily deactivated it, but as the proposal is still being discussed further down it should stay. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Still poring over that page, I see the bot would not have grabbed that section. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You've extended the prot per GR's request. There is no consensus to do that. In fact, there is consensus to not do that, per the familiar proposal 2. The RFC is moribund William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was about to expire, so I just set protection to the maximum reasonable period with the intention of easing off if possible. I am preparing a post to the talkpage - let it abide a few minutes? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, that was more than a few minutes, but Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked - thank you for your patience. I tend to be a very deliberative thinker and writer, and realized this morning that doing this right requires delicate treatment. As the editors about whom I am most concerned are watching this page, I state for the record that yes, I am serious. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think you should probably clarify whether 1RR is in effect - I think it should be, and will be happy to abide by it. But voluntary agreement won't be enough; it requires the sword. I hope you'll assert the simple std WP:1RR with no fancy attempts to redefine it - those are bad William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I originally stated Any material that is reverted is considered controversial, and should be discussed here before being reinserted, but have now added explicit reference to the WP:1RR essay. Thank you for bringing this up - such matters are why I wished to have a period of discussion to make sure that everyone is clear that the definition of edit warring is to be broadly construed and strictly enforced. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think you should probably clarify whether 1RR is in effect - I think it should be, and will be happy to abide by it. But voluntary agreement won't be enough; it requires the sword. I hope you'll assert the simple std WP:1RR with no fancy attempts to redefine it - those are bad William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, that was more than a few minutes, but Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked - thank you for your patience. I tend to be a very deliberative thinker and writer, and realized this morning that doing this right requires delicate treatment. As the editors about whom I am most concerned are watching this page, I state for the record that yes, I am serious. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The Pimp Hand
Mind commenting on his unblock request? Don't understand what the circumstances were that led to him being blocked--but I'm weighing whether to unblock if he changes his username. Blueboy96 02:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind, after seeing what was on his original userpage, I'm not willing to unblock. Blueboy96 03:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, you have email. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Occupied territories
See my comment on Occupied territories as soon as I have a promise from the two of them to behave themselves I'll remove the protection. I would prefer it if you would not do that until after they agree to abide by a no revert to the hatnote until after a resolution to the issue had been agreed.-- PBS (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Gavin collins block - premature?
You need to call a real article RFC. The consensus against Gavin's comments is generally there, but he seems to be trying to work within the system and not abuse it grossly. The polls and discussions back and forth aren't a RFC, and lacking one or an organized consensus, I think it's premature to call him just an edit warrior and block him. Especially without warnings.
I would suggest an actual article RFC be the next step. Don't launch another open discussion under a section named "RFC", actually hold a RFC. Process exists for a reason... Using its labels but not format and actual procedcure doesn't help anything.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Gavin is trying to work within the system. I agree we want his positive contribution to the project, and look forward to the time when he is a mature and respected editor but at present he is showing repeated signs of extreme stubbornness: when anyone disagrees with him he does not listen always seems to take it personally. I have tried to engage with him on his conduct but apparently have only been deemed to have lost my status of independent as a result . I think that some sort of RFC on this editor may be needed more urgently that on the article if you look back through his edit history. Or GWH, perhaps you could take the time to engage with him and mentor him? --BozMo talk 20:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ordinarily, GWH, I would agree with you that blocking without a personal warning for a single edit would be uncalled for. However, I am trying to get that article back into a less combative editing mode after it has been locked due to edit warring for three weeks (less 14 hours of edit warring in the middle). GC has been involved at that article during and before the protection. I do not consider it plausible that they might not have seen the notice on the talkpage regarding renewed edit warring following unprotection or the accompanying plea for consensus prior to making any edits with which other editors at that article are sure to disagree. I note that there is already an RfC at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Request for comment, but it has nothing to do with the material GC suggested.
- Inclusion of sources and use of the talkpage are certainly mitigating factors, and if you think GC has indicated that they will seek and abide by consensus, then I would have no objection to unblocking early.
- Also, I am somewhat confused by the tone of your post, GWH. Do we have issues in the past that I do not recall? My email is open if you would prefer to talk there. Constructive criticism is also always welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if the tone came out badly or was offensive. The situation was engrumpenating to encounter as another uninvolved admin trying to come to grips with it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- No worries, thank you. I remember seeing you around and generally having a favorable impression, which is why I was worried. You have a very good point about the merits of polling vs. discussion, but there is plenty of discussion aside from the straw poll at the top of that article's talk. There is also a related rejected proposal in Archive 9, as well as a great deal of discussion on article scope and coordination with the rest of that family of articles. Your suggestions and help are particularly welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if the tone came out badly or was offensive. The situation was engrumpenating to encounter as another uninvolved admin trying to come to grips with it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've found GC very hard to talk to and extremely stubborn (and I should know) . That the talk page of SOoCC is so contorted that GWH could fail to notice the existing RFC there is part of the ill-disciplined talk mess that GC has helped to create William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that section. It seems to have nothing like a normal RFC's objectives or content. For all intents and purposes it's a continuation of the free form arguments before and after it.
- RFCs exist to structure a discussion enough to encourage outside participation, articulate and focus on points of agreement and disagreement, and attempt to find workable consensus on points of disagreement.
- Just labeling a discussion section RFC isn't good enough.
- Again - I do not disagree that a rough consensus exists. But the process here is intended to organize and formalize those to make them clear and enforceable. The talk page there - and the section labeled RFC - aren't doing that.
- I don't want to blame anyone here - 2/0 is clearly working in good faith on that point. I started looking because I saw a regular I have watchlisted blocked. Taking the long step back and reading the current talk page and the archives, it's a big painful mess. GC is a leading but not sole contributor to the mess. There is clearly widespread disagreement on some other points, though GC is the focal point of the current issue.
- The situation is butting several policies together - WP:RS and WP:V vs WP:UNDUE, for example. I see a lot of people talking past each other on those points (some engaging, but it doesn't stick). I think I see a consensus that the particular stuff he wants to add gives undue weight to a non-domain-specific (political analysis) metaexamination of the scientific consensus, as opposed to the consensus itself. I think I agree that's a reasonable and policy consistent consensus. But laying that out in detail and making that consensus the decision of record should be the next step.
- I think GC is using WP:V and WP:RS to support his personal opinion on the subject, which is fine. That's not bad faith. I think that overall balance indicates WP:UNDUE and the like need to be taken into account. But that's not assuming bad faith by GC. Balancing policy and pillars conflicts is what consensus and the processes are all about...
- Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- The RFC was created in good fairh by Beeblebrox. I have some disagreements with him, but it seems well over the top to label that RFC as "fake". You could try taking this up with him; or you could try a "real" RFC yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
getting photo
Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
various fairness matters
Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
(Caveat: This is pretty lengthy. But I need help) СДжП,ДС 00:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
User:ZooPro Page Restoration
Is it possible to have all my old pages restored?? ZooPro 05:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems another admin has com along and deleted them for some unknown reason. ZooPro 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oops - I just restored the versions I had deleted, forgetting that they still had valid WP:CSD#U1 requests on them. I have now brought them back and removed the tags. Sorry about that. Please let me know if I missed any. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that and thank you for welcoming back. ZooPro 05:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
ZP5
I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of edits by ZP5 that appear to violate the conditions on that page. One is yesterday, two today.
- add IPCC context and mission per talk (note that you have already queried this with ZP5 and he has provided no substantive response that I can see)
- 1RR .. Get real ... see Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#add_IPCC_context_and_mission_per_talk.3F
- Bold, rmv .. Follow the link to IPCC please see: Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#add_IPCC_context_and_mission_per_talk.3F
I do not belief that ZP5 is taking the conditions you have imposed on that page seriously.
William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Another one:
His contribution to the talk appears to be "get real" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Headed to that page now, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. If you haven't noticed, let me point out that he silently removed my warning from his talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
ZP5 has long ago made a good faith offer in exchange for you unblocking him. Please do him the courtesy of responding. --GoRight (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin noticeboard
Hello, I left a message here regarding Ibaranoff reporting me on the messageboard. While you have determined there was no violation, I have offered my perspective nonetheless, particularly the fact that Ibaranoff did not assume good faith when he first contacted me on my talk page, instead immediately threatening me with POV pushing and violating 3RR. Thanks for your time. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your further comments. I will keep an eye on that article for a little while, but do please let me know if I miss something. I also looked at the reporting user, but decided that they had been acting abrasively but not abusively; arguably I should have issued a warning or offered a personalized outside perspective, but I think in this case restricting my comments to the talkpage has the best chance of being productive at this time. As someone who does not edit music articles, your comments on sourcing look like good practice. If you develop a strong consensus at the talkpage that one version or the other is better, then edit warring becomes much easier to distinguish from productive discussion. If you think that Ibaranoff has edited aggressively for the purpose or with the effect of driving off good-faith contributors or stunting a discussion of consensus and that this is a pattern of editing, I recommend filing a Request for comment/User. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you have a look
You protected the a page here the same editor is again engaged in an edit war as you can see here. BigDunc 20:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Quite so. These are not content disputes but attempts by a small group of editors, led by User:HighKing to remove British Isles from Misplaced Pages. I am objecting to their methods and this results in a form of baiting and tag teaming whereby these editors force me towards 4RR and beyond. They are all as guilty as I am of editing warring, perhaps more so, since they are imposing their POV on the rest of the community; I seek to stop them. Mister Flash (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute with no consensus for the changes a group of edkitors are repeatedly inserting at multiple articles, I have asked for protection at this new page and please ask me if you require further details. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- @ Mister Flash you are responsible for your own edits no one is forcing you to push the undo button. BigDunc 20:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is clear that there is a group of editors working together as a team to insert their desired position, I have clearly asked them to stop this editing style as it is creating edit wars at multiple articles, the editors are under the restrictions relating to the Irish troubles arbcom case. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- It sure does you and Mister Flash reverting to get your way. BigDunc 21:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention you, the one with the daft characters, Snowded and HighKing. Mister Flash (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Off2riorob, you seem quite happy to pitch in reverting yourself...oh and lobbying against the wrong version. Mister Flash's aggression, as indicated by his comment above, and what he now sees as his unfettered right to revert at will, is the source of the disruption. Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention you, the one with the daft characters, Snowded and HighKing. Mister Flash (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- It sure does you and Mister Flash reverting to get your way. BigDunc 21:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this related to The Troubles? Or, more to the point, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, or something similar? I am definitely missing some context at the moment, and would prefer not to act further until I understand the wider issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Good move, Black Kite seems to have been pushed over the edge to retirement by his good faith involvement, basically yes it is related to the troubles Irish arbcom, a bunch of editors involved in that case are on a mission to remove the wording the British isles they don't seem to want to be called that as they are from Ireland, and the editors have gone around a few articles, two or three of which are now locked as a result of the resulting edit war that they caused by pushing their favored position without consensus, apart from between themselves and using multiple editors working together at multiple articles, the whole thing could imo use returning to arbcom for an upgrade. For an understanding, have a look at the recent comments here Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree good work BK, no need for blocks on this, 2over0 this could be included as part of the Arbcom on the troubles which has a 1RR in place which Mister Flash was informed about but chose to ignore. Also Off2riorob if you have evidence of editors acting in concert then provide it as the same accusation has been labeled at you. Also do you know that all theses editors are from Ireland another unfounded claim, so put up or shut up. BigDunc 16:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- The troubles is related to wherever these editors go, they create it as they move around from article to article. As I said yesterday, I have started a report and am currently adding evidence to it, if and when I have enough detail I will file the report, your attempts to deflect from your behavior does not change the easily visible reality of your actions. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- I made the exact same amount of edits as you did so if I did something wrong you did also. BigDunc 17:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- The troubles is related to wherever these editors go, they create it as they move around from article to article. As I said yesterday, I have started a report and am currently adding evidence to it, if and when I have enough detail I will file the report, your attempts to deflect from your behavior does not change the easily visible reality of your actions. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Again as I said, my edits are incomparable to yours, I made a revert for an editor to an edit in an attempt to stop him being blocked for your report, and I reverted to the original long term content in an attempt to stop an edit war and I made a blind edit in another attempt to stop another edit war on another article, my input to the situation is completely different from your position, you were part of a combined attempt to push through your favored position together with your like minded editors which resulted multiple edit wars and at least two articles being locked to editing. I am not an arbcom Irish troubles editor I am not involved in this push to insert a position by multiple editors all of whom are related to the troubles articles without consensus at multiple locations. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't report anyone, and I could say the exact same thing you did that you were part of a campaign with MT but I know that is unfounded as much as your spurious claims of a conspiracy are. I will not be taking up this users talk page any longer, if you want to say anything to me use my talk. BigDunc 18:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree good work BK, no need for blocks on this, 2over0 this could be included as part of the Arbcom on the troubles which has a 1RR in place which Mister Flash was informed about but chose to ignore. Also Off2riorob if you have evidence of editors acting in concert then provide it as the same accusation has been labeled at you. Also do you know that all theses editors are from Ireland another unfounded claim, so put up or shut up. BigDunc 16:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note to self for later use: Misplaced Pages talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, linked above, and related discussions are required reading before acting. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
HJ's RFA
It's up. WP:RFA --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you :). - 2/0 (cont.) 10:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind but, since you offered, I directed a neutral participant to your talk page to discuss the ANEW report. Just a heads up. Many thanks and sorry to trouble you (I'm sure you have other things to do). Best, HJMitchell You rang? 21:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Need advice (you offered).
I would like to move the bio on Dr. Stephen Press, ] to its own article, before it gets dissected any further. Is there any reason I shouldn't do that now? ppgdc 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumphotographer (talk • contribs)
- I have no opinion on the matter, but the page is being actively edited so I asked at User talk:Drsjpdc/Stephen J. Press2. When it is ready to go live, please use the move button at the top of the page rather than copy/pasting the content - this preserves the attribution history of the article, and is necessary for licensing purposes. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I moved it that way. I was shocked when I saw it missing. ppgdc (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Works for me - sorry about the shock. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That Global Warming RfC (you know the one...)
An editor has approached me and requested I open another RfC under what I described at ANI as a "nice, neutral, dram-free" title. I've agreed to consider the request if the editor sends me an email outlining his concerns with a few diffs (I don't want the whole climate change argument reopening on my talk page!) and after consultation with you, since you closed the last one. I won't open it if you think it's a bad idea, though I think it could be the best forum to air these grievances. Any thoughts? HJMitchell You rang? 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
WTF
WTF??? Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Context 1 Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Context 2 Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Quite! WTF indeed! 1) A comparison between your edit profile and mine is totally meaningless in regard to any point you are trying to make here. What are you saying - your opinion is worth more than mine? Stroll on! 2) Using the term "British Isles and Ireland" - a term which is wrong since the BI already includes Ireland, as you know but don't like, is WP:BAIT and your use of it in an article is sheer vandalism. Mister Flash (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am saying you reference to vandalism is a serious breach of Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. 2over0 in his wisdom turned a blind eye to your last 4RR on the basis of Context. I dont know if you 4RRs on Five Peaks Challenge is technically a breach; I'm certainly not going to bother going to the effort of filing a report when the Bright-line rule that is 3RR can be overturned on the whimsy of an Admin. I just think 2over0, should either award himself a barnstar for his sterling work or sort out the mess he has created. Þjóðólfr (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Quite! WTF indeed! 1) A comparison between your edit profile and mine is totally meaningless in regard to any point you are trying to make here. What are you saying - your opinion is worth more than mine? Stroll on! 2) Using the term "British Isles and Ireland" - a term which is wrong since the BI already includes Ireland, as you know but don't like, is WP:BAIT and your use of it in an article is sheer vandalism. Mister Flash (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Context 2 Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Stephen J. Press
Why did you move this article from mainspace to begin with?
Did you know the article was created mostly by a user, User:Platinumphotographer, whose user page was created by the subject of the article, without any discussion between them. I smell dirty socks trying to avoid a COI issue. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I just moved the userspace version temporarily to the mainspace so I could fix the copy/paste move by recombining the edit history, but put it back. I have not reviewed the article since the AfD, so I was not comfortable being the one to take it live; doubly so as I expect that I am WP:INVOLVED on any issue dealing with chiropractic. Both of those users are completely open that they have a potential CoI and know each other in real life (based on discussion with sjp at his page; I can look it up if you would like). The one creating the other's userspace is at least consistent with him doing a favor for a buddy as a way of encouraging them to stick around here. There may be other issues (search WP:RS/N for discussions of chiropractic journals), but I do not think that sockpuppetry is one of them. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it is. They carefully made blocks of edits, first one then the other on the Gary Auerbach article, then all their edits are one block, then their other edits for the few articles Platinumphotographer has been involved in. Look at their edit histories and run through the edits the good doctor made to the phogotrapher's user page. I'm not buying any of it. They did both go quiet and stop trying to bully me, though, when I pushed and suggested I would report it. If something's rotten, holding your nose and saying you don't smell it won't help.
- Also, Platinumphotographer is putting in the kind of unattractive and unencyclopedic vanity writing that usually only comes in badly written autobiographies, like the ridiculous degree list that spells: puff piece written by subject to bolster own ego. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I posted at AN/I. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
Dear 2over0, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).
Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 20:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
EW proposal, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I actually just made a very similar proposal right below yours on ANI (without reading yours). You may be interested. I certainly think such a system could go a long way to stopping edit wars without stifling improvement. Prodego 23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
A proud milestone in any admin's career
Is this the first accusation of bias leveled at you by someone you've blocked? Sniff... they grow up so fast... :P MastCell 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
arbitration notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)