Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:26, 7 January 2010

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

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)

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)

getting photo

Drsjpdc (talk)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Replied at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell#Toddst1's oppose. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:42, 28 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)

Replied at User talk:HJ Mitchell#Global warming RfC. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:18, 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)

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)

I think so, but this is a far more entertaining read. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... the Pimp Hand's defenses sound surprisingly similar to those voiced here and here by Immature Basophil (talk · contribs)... small world. Or maybe... nah. Couldn't be. MastCell  19:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:MastCell/Archive 20#Slander Me Again Like You Did On the Administrator's Notice Board, And I Will Request You Get Blocked As Well - based on the joke mileage you have been getting out of that whole blocking yourself snafu, I have raised a completely rational and articulate thread at AN/I requesting that you be topic banned from User:MastCell, Kurt Gödel, and the BLP of any non-immunocompromised individuals, broadly construed. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am impressed at your ability to communicate difficult, unpleasant truths in a palatable manner. I agree that I've probably driven the self-block into the ground. :P On a more serious tip, I think you're doing an excellent job as an admin. The way you've jumped into the fuss du jour and effectively refereed it is really impressive. Clearly the widespread confidence in you was well-placed. :) MastCell  00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What? No! Do not stop bringing up your block - do you know how difficult it was to find even one error about which to kid you? I can send more glue, if that would help. and thank you - really, thank you ... I do my best. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:09, 31 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—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

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)

Holy Farfalloni, that is a huge number of parties. Just in time for the new year, too. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Protocol

Regarding this unfortunately necessary block, do you think it's appropriate to add a template to Jzyehoshua's page to indicate how to proceed? I'm not suggesting the block should be appealed or would be overturned if it were, but he might well be in the dark and we run the risk of complaints when it expires. Well...more complaints; I suspect there will be calls for justice either way.  Frank  |  talk  17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right - I started that reply with no intention of blocking, but they decided to resume edit warring while I was writing, and I plumb forgot to put the uw-block template in. Thank you for pointing this out. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

your adminly duties wanted

There's a request at WP:RFPP to full-protect Global warming. Since you are (apparently) having success with that general content area, can you handle it? Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see comments at RFPP before protecting. There may be better ways to handle the situation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I concede Boris's point. A stern warning might be more appropriate. --TS 04:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a 3RR/EW violation, and BozMo took care of it while I was playing catch up. I think everything else is okay for the nonce, but I will check back in the morning. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another one for you at RFPP, this one on RealClimate. Mind handling it? tedder (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Prolog got it, but thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm tempted to refer any related protections to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. What do you think? tedder (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the thought of funneling reports towards people already familiar with the area and willing to act on the probation. I am not sure about the location, though - would we eventually need to create AN/CC/Archives? That seems out of place. I started a thread at Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Should we encourage people to direct page protection requests here? about putting it there. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and that was very well framed. I'll watch that discussion. tedder (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the template. I sort of got distracted and forgot, but it was a pretty obvious call. --BozMo talk 09:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally I am clearly in deep respect of the way you are taking on the GW articles where I have never done more than dabble. Please never hesitate to undo or change any of my admin actions if you think there is a better way. I also am kind of involved in the articles as an editor at least expressing opinion on talk or if you go back far enough reverting (although in the great sock wars it was hard not to get involved in some reverting); so I would bow to your greater impartiality on principle. But my own gut feel is I am neutral enough to use tools on particular disputes I haven't been involved in, and I will carry on.--BozMo talk 09:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

StevenMario, again

Could you take another look at StevenMario? He's edit-warring again on another article, after coming off your block for that yesterday - here's the current 3RR report... thanks! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring right off a block with no attempt at forging consensus? Nipped. As a side note, in my admittedly limited experience, Baseball Bugs is at least reasonable and usually right. I have not checked why they left that comment, but there is a very good chance that it is worth discussing. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IPCC RFC?

I notice you've done some collapsing. In general this is good, but I'm afraid I can no longer *find* the RFC that you claim has been fixed. Oh, hold on, is it "RfC: What does WP:DUE indicate regarding errors in an IPCC report?" In that case, where are involved editors supposed to comment? Or do you think you know all our opinions? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The old title and summary were clearly unacceptable, but if you think that I have missed the point or misrepresented anything, please fix it. I moved the involved comment threads to the Background section, with links to where essentially the same issues had been discussed during the run up to the RfC. The closest I could find to an uninvolved commenter in the first four days of that RfC is TenOfAllTrades, who reverted the proposed material twice, commented on the RfC once, and commented on another thread after the RfC opened. If I missed anyone, please mention it here or notify them yourself. I am far from confident that this is the best way to handle the tendency of RfCs to turn into just another polite discussion among the editors who were already at an impasse, but it at least avoids swamping debate at the outset. There are several cogent points made in what is now the Background section, and they should certainly be weighed in determining consensus from that discussion. I thought about trying to summarize them in or immediately following the opening statement, but that has far too great a likelihood of misrepresenting someone, and the points made in response would also need to be summarized... I guess with the worst of the off-topic sniping collapsed, the involved debate could be moved back into the RfC proper without discouraging uninvolved editors. If you would like to do that and fix the links, that would be fine. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I found the right RFC then. But am I reading the current RFC wording you've put there correctly? You don't want involved editors to comment? I think that is wrong. I think that permitting involved editors to state their position in an arbitrarily chosen but small amount of text (100 words perhaps) rigidly enfored, and with no adding in comments after other editors comments, would be useful and would not swamp uninvolveds. But it would provide a handy summary - I'm not sure the links available there do that. The key is to permit only a short statement, and only one, to prevent degeneration William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it sounds like moving those comments is interfering with discussion rather than promoting it. I generally agree with your proposition for focusing discussion (I think I tried something similar last time I opened an RfC, but it has been a while), but I am not sure it would be fair at this point to ask everyone to come back and make their points again. I am asking GoRight what they want done with their currently stricken initial comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, might I request that you talk it out somewhere next time something like this comes up? I understand how presentation of information can bias its reception, but when it is not particularly time sensitive there are better avenues to pursue first. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I see there is now Section for comments from involved editors. It needs some attention. Since the familiar whingers will whinge if I fix anything up there (yes, that is a reply to your request passed on from GR) could you have a go at fixing it? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeout. I fixed it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were referring to the fact that GoRight's initial comment is out of chronological order in the new schema. It did not really make sense to put it anywhere else (after the first hat/hab is in the middle of a threaded discussion, which then proceeds towards pear-shaped discursion), so I just left it at the top to err on the side of minimal refactoring. I was hoping to have a lazy Friday and get some actual editing done (see next two threads for how well that is going), so I put a deeper review on a back burner for a while. I parsed the comment you moved as combative but basically on topic, but as the same point is made several times in that discussion, that is fine. Also - thank you for pointing out that I should have been transparent that GoRight brought that other edit to my attention, I will try to be more careful in future. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Biased Admin action disguised as "fixing"

You removed some of my best arguments and counterarguments through your use of selective "collapsing."

For example,

1. You apparently removed my explanation that WP:UNDUE doesn't apply since an expert said the event was a "major confusion"

2. You removed my criticism of Schulz's use of non-wikipedia policy to justify exclusion

If you can't "moderate" fairly then you should find someone who can - it looks like you are trying to push an agenda. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The material I collapsed or removed included eleven edits by you:

, the opening statement

• The original formulation of that RfC used loaded language that might be construed as an attempt to bias the responses received. The whole point to a Request for comment is to request input from new editors who come to a discussion with fresh eyes. Stating a desired conclusion is an easy mistake to make, but I am mildly surprised that nobody fixed the wording in the first four days of discussion.
• Including the proposed text is fine, though I think it is better practice to leave the discussion a bit more open and fluid, especially at the outset. If you wish to put the proposed text after the opening statement now, that would be fine. As the text is already present in the linked background sections, it might work best under a {{hat}} - your call.
• A brief summary of the discussion that led up to the RfC is a good idea, but poorly implemented. It is better to agree on wording before opening an RfC to ensure that the best arguments and presentation are being used. It might even come to pass that this process of setting forth the points of disagreement clearly and concisely could obviate the need for an RfC. The points you mention are covered in the ensuing discussion or the background sections linked in the new opening statement. Part of the point of consensus is that the quality of an argument is more important than its origins.
• Argument for inclusion #1 is mistaken. From WP:DUE: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Whether this is the case or not is, of course, the subject of the RfC.
• There may be occasions when taking a straw poll is useful as a means to finish out a discussion, especially a complex discussion where people are led to compromise and consensus through rational argumentation. It is not, however, a substitute for discussion. Please in the next RfC you open take more care to phrase the request to facilitate discussion and promote input from outside editors.

is no longer relevant.

comprises equal parts arguing at Stephan Schulz and a digression; please try to focus your comments on encouraging discussion and working towards consensus. Policy pages are descriptive, not prescriptive - they are written to reflect current actual practice, not to impose some outside ideal. Similarly, citing a guideline is a labor saving technique for pointing out similarities between the present discussion and the more general case.

is no longer relevant.

is focused solely on attacking William M. Connolley. Please be aware of and abide by the civility policy.

is a touch rude, but would not be horribly out of place in one of the related discussions.

states that consensus is needed before a newly added section may be removed. As policies such as NPOV are intended to apply to articles at all times and the present debate centers on said compliance, this is mistaken.

, , and - Polling is not a substitute for discussion.

discusses the IPCC itself rather than improvements to the Misplaced Pages article describing the Panel.

As an unrelated point, might I encourage you to use more descriptive edit summaries as a courtesy to your fellow editors? If you go to Preferences → Editing there is a checkbox labeled Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef Blocking without 3RR or Block?

You indef blocked two users, Rameses and Brittainia without warning. Neither of them had a 3RR warning in the past year. They were accused of being sockpuppets and checkusered in the past without any due procedure by Raul64. They explained they were a husband and wife and have not been editing any of the same articles recently. Rameses has been an editor since July 2004. Do you believe you acted fairly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.204.229 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I remember the above as having some truth. Email? --BozMo talk 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to AN thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without 3RR or Warning?. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

@BozMo - are you asking me for an email discussing this? I am happy to oblige, I just would not want to go through the effort of digging up the history for no reason. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Its ok, I found the archive Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive77#Ramses_and_Brittainia_RFCU_-_sockpuppeting_confirmed. I am happy if you were already aware of it, but thought I ought to point out the history. --BozMo talk 21:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the relevant link - it is from well before my time dealing with such issues, but was brought to my attention in the SBHB link following. I think most of the relevant recent talk is at User talk:2over0/Archive 3#Block of Brittainia, User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris#Brittainia/Rameses, and User talk:2over0/Archive 3#Canvassing. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth starting a thread over?

- but according to the guidelines, i'd thought i should at least mention it somewhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this - I asked the IP to take it to Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. I saw the original change and verified that the linked articles are as described in the edit summary, and agreed that it was a simple change unlikely to incite controversy or need discussion. I will keep an eye on it for a little while, but I will be out for the night in a few hours - AN3, RFPP, or AIV, you know the drill. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Articles related to climate change are now subject to general sanctions per the abovelinked page. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way I did this . I have been on that talk page discussing with him but on the only content issue raised (including NIPCC) I seem to be aligned with him so I thought I would do a civility warning even though I was in the room. Per User_talk:BozMo#NOTICE:_Climate_Change_articles do step in if you think I am being too bold... --BozMo talk 19:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was weighing what to do there, and I think your request to that user is a good one. Did you plan on logging it as an official notification? For myself, I am just going by the old rules until the probation settles in for fear of wikilawyering. Blockable behavior is blockable behavior, after all. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the answer to your question is no. I will probably just be a bit more rigorous in applying the old rules. --BozMo talk 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit waring warning at IPCC please ...

If you intend to enforce these new probation sanctions even handedly please issue this same warning at the IPCC article. --GoRight (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking about this one. AFAIK I have only edited this article on spam/vandalism (most recently once in Dec 2009 prior to which twice on 13 April 2008 reverting two Scibaby socks) so I would be prepared to enforce it, and I started typing the notice out. However the version which was protected was the version with the contentious text supported by GoRight in, so moving from protection to permanent veto might remove one side's motivation to get consensus. I think waiting until some agreement has been reached on the glacier thing first (e.g. to move it to another article) before we drop protection gives the best chance of achieving consensus. What do you reckon? --BozMo talk 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And in the example I provide above the article was protected with the contested removal supported by TS and ChrisO. If you're going to defacto lock in the WP:WRONGVERSION when it suits the warmers you also have to be willing to lock in the WP:WRONGVERSION when it suits the skeptics. Otherwise you will only be proving my point that these sanctions will be disproportionately targeted at the skeptics in a non-neutral manner. --GoRight (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Bozmo - Ale jrb's userhist script agrees with your memory. Jayron32 is currently holding the protection for that article, so I want to consult with them after seeing what people have to say at the talkpage (I am still cooking dinner, so it will be a while yet and I have not checked the current status as of this post). - 2/0 (cont.) 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GW and ZuluPapa5

I feel like I'm being snippy and unproductive. People, whether for better or worse, won't tell you that until it's too late. For reasons that to criticize the critic would be unwise. I, of course, don't buy into that; and I'll be frank and forthright and ask you: what do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

. --GoRight (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am a big fan of ignoring comments or parts of comments I find unproductive - the trick is to make sure that it takes more time and effort to rile you up than it takes you to avoid it. In this case, instead of linking BAIT you might have ignored the history that lead you to think baiting, and instead pointed to where such proposals have been made and rejected before. Even just WP:RTA would work; it would be a bit terse, but would cost almost none of your finite time and attention (a pretty good ratio, I would say). The best part about this approach is that it increases the behavioral contrast between people here to build an encyclopedia and people who are just here for a flamewar or to push some outside objective (not saying that that is the case here, obviously, just making a general observation).

So, yeah, a bit on the snippy side - thank you for having the self-awareness to notice. On the other hand, taking it to usertalk is a good step. As for ZP5's original comment, TS basically dismissed it when they first raised it, and everyone else ignored it until the article was edited. As long as people are discussing at the talkpage more than in edit summaries, there is yet hope for that article. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In passing...

Thank you, it's a big task and you're doing remarkably well. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :). Do please drop me a line when I royally foul things up or, better yet, send a clue my way before I go too far. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

William Connolley

Hi, since there are article that are sanctionable now under the new guidelines I think this article needs some administrator attentions. There is a slow ongoing edit war going on there about WMC loss of administratorship. I personally don't want anything to do with this so I am bringing it to your attentions and you can decide what is best. Some are saying that there is a breach in WP:BLP policies and that some of the references used are know to be inaccurate. I just thought I'd bring this to others attentions before things get to hot to handle. The template being used is on the talk page. I hope I was correct to bring here. AN/I seemed like a bad place to bring it for obvious reasons. Thanks,--CrohnieGal 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That editor just got a notification of probation and a final BLP warning ... I guess I am okay with seeing if those help. I will glance through their contributions for the next few days, but do please bring it up if they step over the line. Hipocrite already removed the BLP-violating blog-sourced material.

The RfC seems to be an exercise in talking past each other, which tempts me to lock the edit-warred material out of the article until it concludes, on pain of blocking - do you think that would help? I am obviously familiar with several of the regulars at that article, but have not been following it at all.

On the topic of not watching articles in serious need of attention, I stopped monitoring Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident a while ago. If anyone wants to bring diffs to bring me quickly up to speed for some action between normal editing and Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation, I would be happy to take a look. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncle. I'm a talk page lurker here, I didn't have that article watchlisted. I agree that the RFC is failing. I'm going to prod the article now. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Schultz has been doing a pretty good job watching things there. I think if the new editors and anon IP activities were stopped it might make it easier for those who are trying to keep things free of violations may help. I don't really know the players except for the ones constantly being brought to a board. I stopped watching the other one long ago, too noisy for me. If you know some of the editors from other articles causing problems then by all means let them know someone else is watching at the minimum. Sorry I can't be more help. --CrohnieGal 20:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming faq edit war

First, thanks for your kind note on my talk page.

The NPOV template I put up on F22 in order to draw attention to the dispute discussion in the gw talk page has been deleted prior to consensus being achieved on the grounds that NPOV template is not appropriate for talk space. I'm having difficulty coming up with a polite response to this that achieves the simple goal of letting people know that F22 is disputed and not edit warring. Could you please intervene so that it's fairly resolved. F22 is a very recent addition and I can't see where it was discussed prior to be posting on 30, December by TS. TMLutas (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked TS please to discuss such things in future; unilaterally adding to the FAQ without establishing wording and need is not the best way to go about it. The wording could use some work, but I think the discussion retroactively indicates the need. Hopefully it will be hammered out at talk now, but you are not going to get anywhere arguing that any single paper should be given the same space and weight in an article as the general consensus view of the field. The issue of whether the FAQ is being inappropriately used to dismiss every new source is, of course, entirely separate. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Anybody currently looking at the FAQ but not at the talk page would have no idea that F22 is controversial in any way. Is the POV template acceptable? Can it be put back in there?

I do not believe that any single paper should be given the same space and weight as consensus. That's a straw man that I would never intentionally give the impression I'm supporting. I'm saying that minority views should have some representation appropriately weighted and appropriate weighting should be determined as WP:WEIGHT lays it out, with general articles highly tilted towards consensus citations and text balance and specialist articles like global cooling less imbalanced but clearly identifying what is consensus and what is minority opinion. TMLutas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that any editor who has the FAQ watchlisted is also watching Talk:Global warming - it is only transcluded to one page ().

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that overweighting single papers is your point or intention, only that avoiding it seems to be the purpose of that particular entry. You are correct that NPOV is very clear that minority opinions must be covered in relation to their prominence, but that FAQ is meant to address the entirely separate issue of reporting papers as they come out instead of waiting for the results to be replicated and integrated into the general understanding of the field. If I may be permitted a small digression into a field about which I care a bit more than all the hot air around climate change, every 18 months or so a new paper comes out claiming that a particular material is "harder than diamond" under some set of conditions. The reports are based on phonon frequencies or single-crystal compressibility or indentation or whatever ... and yet, I would guess that there is a very good chance that you have never heard of any of them. The materials science community will sit up and notice when materials with interesting properties are synthesized, and it will become apparent fairly quickly that the particular paper in question has not had enough impact on the field to warrant reporting it here. Superhard materials is not overrun with a blow-by-blow of the history precisely because waiting for the relevant academic community to indicate how a result should be weighted is the proper procedure here. Contrast this with the new iron-based high temperature superconductors: they are still new and exciting (last I checked, we were still at the "working out a phenomenological model" stage, with the underlying physics being summarized as "not BCS"). And yet, since the community has clearly indicated that the discovery is highly significant (not to mention fascinating), there is a significant section treating the phenomenon at High-temperature superconductivity.

All of which is to say, waiting to see how a new result is received has nothing to do with minority opinions, and I remain unclear as to how FAQ22 conflates the two. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I only heard about FAQ22 in a functional attempt to squash coverage of the entire decade just ended on global cooling. Now global cooling is different than global warming and the majoritarian opinion does not need so much space as in a general purpose page like global warming as per WP:WEIGHT. Global cooling is also much shorter, just 32k v 98k for global warming and thus there's plenty of headroom to weight properly and no need to squash on WP:TOOLONG grounds that appropriate weighting necessarily will cause article splitting.

I'm in my 3rd week of debating coming up with some sort of section covering the decade. Whether or not there's actual bad faith intent, the result is indistinguishable, so far, from a bad faith attempt to squash the global cooling minority opinion which does have some support, especially among solar scientists, especially in Russia. The debate predates F22's creation but the same issues are being hashed out. So when F22 was brought up by Bertport as a FAQ that has applicability also in global cooling, I trundled on over and the rest is history. I know that F22 is useful in attempts to squash because that's what's happening to my own pendin edit on global cooling. TMLutas (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you want the Neutral point of view noticeboard (recall that DUE is a section of NPOV) or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force - outside volunteers there can discuss whether the sources presented justify the language proposed. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly an RFC. Might be a good idea not to make accusations of bad faith, though. I wrote that FAQ question so I know for certain no ulterior motives went into it. --TS 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please close this thread? It's not going anywhere. And it can't go anywhere because one "side" of the dispute doesn't understand how science is done and is more interested in denigrating scientists. Of course, a better option would be to ban the people who know nothing from editing the page... But the odds of that happening are less than my head spontaneously exploding in the next 5 seconds. -Atmoz (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not object if someone else were to close that thread, but as long as the conversation does not stray afoul of WP:CIVIL or wander completely off topic, I am not touching that one. It is my expressed opinion that the entry is basically a good distillation of policy, though I have not ventured over to Talk:Global cooling or otherwise checked to see if it is being used to stifle legitimate discussion or prevent the WP:DUE use of sources. Suggest in the thread that it be closed? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Advisor

A little bit more context from the people whose sound advice you follow. - lol Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear 2/0

I have no polite response to your message. "You are way out of bounds" would be by far the nicest thing I could say. Please refrain from posting on my talk page in the future. Consider that a polite, formal request. I also am not watching your talk, so there's no need to reply.

Oh PS, I really hope you warned folks other than me. Really I do. It would restore my faith in you if you warned the AGW folks..

PPS. I changed my mind. Please spare me the trouble of combing through your contribs: please post a list here on talk of everyone that you warned. I'm checking for bias, of course. • Ling.Nut 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The climate change probation enforcement log is at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. If you would like to see examples of informal requests, advice, and notifications I have discussed, pretty much the entirety of my time on Misplaced Pages for the last few weeks has been devoted to trying to restore a normal collaborative editing environment at our climate change articles. Referring to the AGW folks is an example of what I would really prefer that you avoid in future - it is unfair to a diverse group of editors to tar them all with the same brush.

For archival purposes: formal GS/CC warning citing and . - 2/0 (cont.) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Page deletion and possible stalking ...

I had noticed a conversation at where Mark was working on an article on the Gore Effect in his user space. Bozmo, you, and even KDP seemed OK with him trying to work on it there.

Seeing this I went to take a look and I made a few formatting and cleanup edits to help Mark out. This morning I find that ChrisO has appeared out of no where and had the page speedily deleted. We will pursue an appeal of this. If you think that it is acceptable for Mark to work on this in his own user space as your comments seemed to suggest (since you took not action to have it removed yourself), could you please weigh in on this?

Also, I believe that this MAY be an indication that ChrisO is beginning to stalk me so I have placed a notice to that effect on his talk page indicating that if he persists appropriate resolutions will be pursued. This is just FYI for now and to register that I will be paying attention to this issue and may be seeking assistance in this regards should the problem continue to manifest itself. --GoRight (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)