Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:36, 7 June 2010

POUR UNE WIKIPÉDIA DURABLE

If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there. Please do not put a talkback template here.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Rick Warren mediation Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 9 months and 26 days.

"testicular fortitude"

Can't say that mate its sexist. Otherwise suggest you ignore the side comments and continue to do whatever you judge right without worrying. And you are not "junior", you are amongst equals. --BozMo talk 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't intended to be sexist, just a phrase I remember hearing long ago that stuck with me. I'm sure there are female admins that display the same (ovarial fortitude, perhaps?). Also, in terms of experience I have less than most other admins. I do know that we don't have any sort of hierarchy, of course. The Wordsmith 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, welcome to the cabal... ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar.2C_NuclearWarfare.2C_The_Wordsmith.2C_Polargeo

I have noted in the above enforcement request that the admin-only results section is for results, not for threaded discussion. If you wish to enage in threaded discussion, you are directed to do so where the plebians are able to respond to you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 17 May 2010

• News and notes: Backstage at the British Museum

• In the news: In the news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Essays

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Time to take a case?

Hi Wordsmith. Do you have time to take a case for the MedCom? Candidates with pending nominations are by convention allowed to take one case as a "trial run" for the time they could potentially spend formally mediating for real. In your case I'd like you to take a case not because you have to prove your worth but because we're a little backlogged at the moment (in terms of available mediators, not caseload). :-) Would you be able to take one on? It's a quite informal and low-key case; nothing too intense, I shouldn't think. AGK 22:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis 2, yes? If so, i'll take it. Is there any silly song-and-dance I need to do before commenting there? The Wordsmith 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the case I'm referring to, yeah. There used to be some paperwork we had the parties fill out in order to ensure they agreed to have a non-Committee member take the case. I don't think we'll bother with it here, especially what with the low-key, amicable, and informal nature of the case. I guess that she's all yours. Best, AGK 00:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

My 2-week topic ban expires today, am I correct? Athenean (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your ban is now expired. The Wordsmith 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

The Register used in the following articles as a source.

• Criticism of Misplaced Pages

• CableHell used four times in one article

• Phorm Seventeen Times in one article

• National identity card (United Kingdom) Seems to me to be considered a reliable source when attributed, which in my edits it was. There are hundreds of such refs btw.

Steve McIntyre Used in the following articles as sources, please note he also passes wp:sps

• Hockey stick controversy

• Extremal principles in non-equilibrium thermodynamics

• Open Notebook Science

• Judith Curry Seems to be considered a reliable source and again he passes wp:sps

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. also passes wp:sps. I honestly do not see how any of these sources can be considered as breaking my previous sanction. All are fully reliable. All were attributed, i request you lift this new sanction or it will now be impossible for me to work on new content. For instance over the last few weeks i have created the following articles, all of which deal with climate change one way or another. Mike Hulme Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future Susan M. Gaines Carbon Dreams Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History How am i meant to create articles or work on content if i have to ask permission to use a ref every time? mark nutley (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will consider your appeal. If you have any admins or established editors willing to vouch for you, send them over here. The Wordsmith 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

2/0

Hi. Are you discounting 2/0's opinion on GSCC due to your belief he is no longer an "uninvolved" admin? "Yes" or "No," will do. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Short answer? No. Longer answer: I do consider him involved, but I still looked at and analyzed each and every opinion given in that enforcement request, even from the non-admins and involved admins. Where a handful of editors are allowed to filibuster or make irrelevant points, nothing will ever achieve consensus, so I took BOLD and decisive action, and did what I felt was the right thing. There wasn't consensus against a ban, either. The Wordsmith 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What has led you to believe 2/0 "edits the topic area?" If it turns out that you are mistaken, what about your behavior will you change in the future to prevent you from making errors of fact? If it turns out you are not mistaken, you will provide me with a 2010 diff of 2over0 "editing" in the topic area (as opposed to "adminstratoring"), on request, correct? I am concerned that you are making administative action based on off-wiki communication that is innacurate and misleading. Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

You'll have seen I imagine. I request you give NW permission to release the other half (your half) of the IRC log William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hereby release my half of the logs under CC-BY-SA. NW has my fill permission to post them. The Wordsmith 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I came by to ask you if you logged that outcome (and Marknutley's) ? I can't find it in the log. I have to say that on numbers WMC's probably got a point about WMC's ban from that article. It was the right outcome, to be sure, but the consensus apparently isn't there. I think another stern warning is about all that one could hope for. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I logged both actions in the same edit, that edit is here. The Wordsmith 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, when you logged the sanction on the Singer article, you didn't specify whether it applied also to the article talk page or not. Believe me, if that is the case then it needs to be stated. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is not explicitly mentioned, then this it is not included for all intents and purposes. Cenarium (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the Talk page and found that WMC's edits to it weren't all that problematic, so the ban does not extend to the article talk page. The Wordsmith 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the tough call.

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For acting as a role model for other administrators by making important Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:BLP a priority on Fred Singer. FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll second this. Notice that SV was forced to expand the article in her userspace because of the disruption. Look at what she was able to accomplish with it once the disruptive influence was removed. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

I hope you agree that in retrospect, your closure of the RFE against me did not reflect consensus. You will have seen various admins agreeing that is so, and even Lar, abvove. I think the best thing is for you to admit this and withdraw your closure, in order to spare us all yet more dramah.

I hope you will allow me to epxress my disappointment at the way you have "closed and run". You knew that close would be controversial, yet you did not stay around to answer questions. This is regrattable.

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would also note that I do not see the consensus, which I feel is required in a matter such as this. I would appreciate if you could comment on how you saw consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my close did not have consensus by vote tally, but consensus is not a vote. When I looked at the strength of arguments and weighed them carefully, I decided that the closure was the right thing to do. I could have also made the same close under BLP Special Enforcement, if I wanted, which would have given me complete leeway to do the right thing. In addition, several editors have pointed out that a consensus of admins is irrelevant, as the general sanction states in part "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." Thus, technically only one admin is needed.

As for the closing and running, some of us do have employment that requires us to work odd hours, and relationships that are more important than Misplaced Pages (in short, I had work and then it was date night, which had been on the books for a week). I am here now, and I will answer any questions.

As far as reverting my closure, I will make you an offer. I have been wrong before, and I have always been willing to reconsider my actions (See WP:BLPRFC2 for an example of this). Go through the evidence against you, or at least a representative sample (the diffs I posted with your ban notice will suffice. Explain to me how those edits are valid and not a violation of our policies. If you can make a convincing argument that you do edit within our content guidelines, then I will reduce or revoke the ban. The Wordsmith 16:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not negotiating with you; I'm suggesting that your close was in error and you take advice to revert it. If you're determined to go through all the pointless mess of an appeal, then let it be so. I'll give you not-much-longer to indicate any change of mind William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, please self-reflect on your editing in the Singer article. Do you feel you were right, why? Do you feel that you could have done better? Then say so. We take responsibility for our actions, learn lessons, and move on. This is especially true when our actions affect other human beings, which is why we have a BLP policy. Cla68 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate greatly if you explained and discussed your actions at the RFE page, instead of being disrespectful to me on IRC. Cenarium (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry!!!

You are an admin, and thus you will always be wrong - even sometimes in the opinion of other admins (who of course are also wrong for opining you are wrong, in both fact and action)! It goes with the territory. CCPE, though, is really, really, hard to even begin to be considered as having the possibility of there being the potential of being not wrong. It's tough, because what appears to be simple isn't, and because the same players will be appearing on the bill over the coming days, weeks and months (or until the curtain is pulled down) all decisions need to be made with an eye to future requests and a mind to what has gone before. Also, the major issue with the Climate Change articles is that we want them to be edited by those very accounts that are brought up on Probation requests - just in compliance with policy. Believe me, this makes it almost impossible to be seen to be right. The point of all the above is that you may be more than a little dismayed to see me opposing your ban on WMC, but it is not anything personal - I think WMC should not edit the article but upon criteria more in relation to his recent editing of it, rather than historically - and I think you should really stay and help. If you stay long enough, two or three days would be my guess, you will likely have the opportunity to explain to me where I got it wrong. As I said, it goes with the territory. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your close, again

I'm struggling to understand your close. You said I find the diffs presented by SlimVirgin and others to be highly disturbing. The fact that they come from three consecutive years turns it into a pattern. In 2008, there was the Mars nonsense in the lede. In late 2009, diffs have been presented by ATren of WMC sourcing content to RealClimate, which is wrong on several different levels. SlimVirgin's diffs come from 2010. There appears to be general agrement that sanctions should be based on edits *since* the probation(Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests for enforcement#Sanctions.2C_especially bans_or blocks.2C should not_be based_on_edits made_before the beginning_of this_probation.3F although edits before then could be "taken into consideration" perhaps. Having looked at the diffs provided by SV of edits *after* the probation, I can see nothing very exciting, but you say "SlimVirgin's diffs come from 2010". Could you provide a few - perhaps 2-3 - diffs *since* the probation that you consider BLP-threatening; or if you can't find any that bad, the 2-3 edits since then that are the wors, or the most "highly distubing" as you put it? This should be an easy task, because they should be chosable from the few that SV has already supplied William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please could you come to the Enforcement request page, re WMC's appeal, and answer the concerns there. I have no problem with admin's being bold, but I do feel there is a requirement for such actions to be discussed promptly where there are questions over the rationale. Should there be no response within a reasonable time, then I am constrained to open a discussion with the purpose of overturning your close and substituting it for one that satisfies the consensus between the admins (which, of course, you would be welcome to join). I hope that this will not be necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • First things first, I unreservedly apologise for taking so long in notifying you of my actions - I think I edited every damn page involved except that of yours; that was remiss of me.
    I have overturned the ban imposed by you on William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) on editing Fred Singer, following my reading of consensus following WMC's appeal. Technically, Dr Connolley is correct regarding the application of BLP upon edits prior to the setting up of the Probation. I have re-opened the discussion regarding the appropriate manner of dealing with WMC's recent editing of the article, and you may wish to comment there. As I have been at pains to convey, please do not regard this as a criticism of your good faith efforts - it is simply a case of needing to be careful in applying the letter of policy since there are likely to be consequences in the future. I trust we shall see you again among the CCPE pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re my question - I too must apologise, because you did provide diffs on my talk page. I've examined the 3 that postdate the sanctions and find them unconvincing; we could discuss this if you like, but the matter may well now be moot William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to talk you up on your offer to discuss your edits, but I think it would be best if we wait until the current situation re Singer is resolved. If the indefinite ban is not going to stick (which, at this point seems to be the case) then I would like for us to have a conversation and possibly come to understand each others' positions better. Perhaps IRC or any of the other popular messaging protocols, after the enforcement request is decided? The Wordsmith 22:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you look at a "!vote" I made on your behalf

Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Straw Poll of uninvolved admins regarding consensus for action re WMC where I have noted your previous preferred option and included it in the poll. I have done this action because you have noted that other interests rightly take priority over editing WP, and you may not have time to place your option before the poll closes. If you wish to certify (by subbing my sig with yours) or change or remove the !vote, please do so promptly. Thanks LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Lohan (2nd nomination)

Just a note that when nominating an article for deletion using Twinkle, it sometimes fails to transclude it to the right log. That seems to be what happened here so this AFD is still open. It was mentioned on WT:AFD and I added it to the current closable log so it should be closed soon. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hush your insults you. Wordsmith edits from a phone, so he may have forgotten to add the tildes—or he may have been unable to, and have hoped that SineBot or a colleague would add a tag for him until he reached a computer. AGK 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What is this twaddle about templates, old fruit? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:: (Old fruit is cockney rhymning slang for old fruit gum = old chum). --BozMo talk 12:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

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

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Chelo61 RfC

Hello, this note is just to tell you that an RfC has begun regarding User:Chelo61. Since you may have been involved with this user, your input is appreciated. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Chelo61. Thank you. Phearson (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 24 May 2010

• News and notes: New puzzle globe, feature for admins, Israel's "Misplaced Pages Bill", unsourced bios declining

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Saints

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Time limitation needed

Your proposed close is fine by me, I guess, but I suggest that "Polargeo is prohibited from commenting in the "Result concerning X" section," is less clear than "It is determined that Polargeo is considered an involved admin for the purposes of this page, untill such time as a (majority/consensus/specific number) of admins determines this is no longer the case." This makes it clear that the prohibition is not a punishment for bad behavior, but rather a ruling on involvedness. I further suggest you make an explicit Lar involvedness ruling, either way - in that, I'd ask that you explicitly state if he is involved or uninvolved with respect to WMC and Polargeo, in addition to generally. I bring this here instead of there to avoid the hangers-on, and would honestly like your thoughts. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a few issues we're discussing here, so i'll try to separate them to the best of my ability:

1. 1. With regards to a note about overturning, your proposed change is reasonable. I had thought it was implied that consensus could overturn any part of a sanction, but if that is not the case I am willing to clarify that.
   2. For making a ruling on Lar's involvedness, i'm a bit more hesitant. The RFC on precisely that question will expire in just a few days, and with 25 endorsing SBHB's summary and 23 endorsing Lar's as of this comment, it seems that there is no hope of consensus. If we can't get consensus amongst the wider group of admins and editors that comment on RFCs, I doubt we can achieve consensus with the handful of admins that hang around here.
   3. If I did propose a statement about Lar, it would be made as a separate resolution so as not to drag the first few statements down with it. It would probably be something along the lines of "Lar is allowed to comment as an uninvolved admin, but is encouraged to voluntarily recuse himself from requests concerning WMC or Polargeo for the next 3 months." Would that be something you might be able to support? The Wordsmith 18:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My support dosen't count for beans, so I'll merely say that I appreciate your willingness to take my requests on board, and approve of any ruling WRT Lar - be it that Lar is totally uninvolved, banned, or whatever - I merely want someone to decide and get this behind us. I agree with your second point - perhaps it's unnecessary to cap it - my stronger point is to make it clear that it's a ruling on involvedness, not a punishment for edit-warring. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hungary–Slovakia relations

I do realise that Hungary–Slovakia relations is probably not your most beloved article, but a very brief look at Talk:Hungary–Slovakia_relations#Hungarians_of_the_Carpathian_Basin and the edits/behaviour of User:Squash Racket should demonstrate why a level-headed objective administrator is still required. Squash Racket has made some fairly controversial unilateral changes and is completely dismissing anything resembling a debate. I suspect he may be a child (I do not mean this as an attack, merely an observation made in earnest), making it extremely difficult to conduct a mature debate. His points, being so logic-defying as to almost be non-sequiturs have largely collapsed, yet I doubt this will have pulled the breaks on his fervour. Since I do not wish to edit war, a little informal mediation would be much appreciated if you have the time. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The incredibly one-sided way of Happenstance's description of the problem full of personal attacks is not a big surprise after he — among other attacks on myself — labeled my clearly constructive edits as "vandalism" before. Considering his constant civility issues I wonder how he has the guts to label others children.

Among my "fairly controversial changes" I changed an interpretation of a politician's words into the actual words said during the speech, I added referenced material etc. His main problem is that he wants to highlight the term Carpathian Basin as a controversial term, because his favorite Slovak politicians had done so. The media of both countries involved — Hungary and Slovakia — have rejected the "controversy" as a joke, Happenstance still wants to emphasize it. Talking of collapsing arguments...

Since he doesn't wish to edit war after edit warring for a while, feel free to share your opinion on the matter. Squash Racket (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel confident in allowing my contributions to the debate speak for me. Had you redirected half the effort you just put into that reply into trying to come to an agreeable compromise, there would have been no need to resort to requesting mediation. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the both of you could use Misplaced Pages:A nice cup of tea and a sit down. Editors would behave so much differently if they could all sit down and drink tea together, or perhaps a nice tasty beer if that is your style. I had a lovely blueberry ale from a local microbrewery a few days ago that would have made me want to work productively with Bambifan101 if he was there with me. Anyway, it seems that you are both reasonable editors with different opinions on what is best for Misplaced Pages. If you want my assistance, I can help you mediate this dispute. The Wordsmith 17:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There may just be some truth in that: were I able to discuss with my native Aussie accent, deliver my points laden with "mate"s and bursts of laughter, and use colourful local colloquialisms I'm sure I would appear less intransigent. Anyway, Thank you for offering to help, and any time you wish to step in on talk is cool. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The amount of content being edit warred over is increasing; any time you wish to step in would be great. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Happenstance removes material from Der Spiegel and The Economist while adds irrelevant material making false comparisons between the situation in Quebec and South Slovakia. Squash Racket (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A request

Hi WS, I responded today to something you posted on the CC probation about RfCs and filibustering, because I felt it was factually inaccurate. Then I noticed I'd posted it in the uninvolved section, so I removed it. Could I ask you to post something under your comment to the effect that I posted my disagreement, or strike through the part of your post that refers to RfCs and filibustering? I wouldn't normally bother about this kind of detail, but I feel strongly that article RfCs are one of the key tools in breaking down group-editing, for the want of a better term, and I wouldn't like to see anything discourage them. I can well imagine in future one of the players pointing to your post to put someone off posting an RfC. SlimVirgin 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-pedophile activism" Article Nominated for Deletion

You have previously edited or commented on the article entitled "Anti-pedophile activism." It has now been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to follow or contribute to the AfD process, please visit the page created for this purpose: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-pedophile activism. Your input would be appreciated. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 31 May 2010

• Photography: Making money with free photos

• News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

half asleep

Hi there. Half asleep. Saw my name and thought kill! I think it is amusing that the least biased of editors is banned from acting as an uninvolved admin based on no real policy whatsoever :) Polargeo (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also CC articles are not my main editing area, they never have been. There are no rulings by arbcom or anyone else preventing an editor from acting as an uninvolved admin because they have actually edited some articles in a very large topic area. The important thing is to be seen to be neutral and uninvolved in any particular case. I strongly feel the whole "you have actually edited some of the thousands of CC articles" to be a complete red herring in the whole debate but unfortunately one that Lar has gamed to his advantage. Still nobody has shown me the policy or arbcom ruling which applies here. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

One phrase grounded in policy that may apply is from WP:ADMIN, saying "Administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." Since you edit global warming articles and participate significantly as an editor, as opposed to simply taking administrative actions on occasion, you are seen more as an editor than an administrator in the topic area. Therefore, you may not be neutral with regards to user conduct disputes in this area. Even if this is not explicitly spelled out in policy, I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies. In addition, your contributions to the sanctions area lately have been rather POINTy, especially you filing an enforcement request against yourself. When that is factored in, it is clear that you could use a break from the area. I think it is everyone's hope that in three months you will have a new sense of perspective, and be able to act as a neutral, uninvolved admin. You do seem like you are capable of being a reasonable person, so I am willing to help you obtain said perspective if you ask for it. Just know that I have nothing personal against you; it was just necessary to end the drama. The Wordsmith 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I accept the pointy, accept the drama even accept a three month ban etc. but I do not accept that my personal editing of certain CC articles bars me from acting as uninvolved in all CC articles in cases where I do not have "direct involvement" in a particular issue. I know my RfC/U against Lar appears to have tied me to WMC but that is simply not the case I raised the RfC/U as a genuine concern I have had with Lar's bias which actually came to my attention because of some astonishing comments of his with regard to a previous case involving Stephan Schulz. I just got more and more amazed by Lar's bias the more I watched things unfold. Lar has not had to deal with me as an admin it has been me trying to deal with him and yet I now find he has the bulk of the support when he moves my comments after I have reverted his first move. Lar should not deal with me in his admin role, simply never. Polargeo (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway. I accept the judgement regarding myself. I understand the complex reasons behind it and I sincerely hope that in three months when my ban ends it will be irrelevent as there will be no enforcement page, increased cooperation between editors and less tribalism. Polargeo (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI comment

Struck my mention of Lar. It wasn't intended as a swipe at Lar -- I thought it was fairly obvious that Hipocrite was giving Lar a taste of his own, which is why I mentioned his name (i.e., "we know why you're doing this, but knock it off anyway"). But I struck that bit to avoid any misunderstandings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you did it, and I thank you for striking that remark. I also hope you understand that I consider myself even-handed, and if Lar had taken a passing shot at you I would have made the same request of him. The Wordsmith 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Feel free to call me out whenever you think I'm out of line. I might not always agree with you, but I'll take your views on board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Mediation Committee

It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. The open tasks template, which you might like to add to your watchlist, is for co-ordinating our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. I have also subscribed your e-mail address to the committee mailing list, which is occasionally used for internal discussion and for periodical updates; feel free to post to this at any point if you need feedback from the other mediators. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you! For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Case Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence 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:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by WavePart (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Ronnie Baxter protected for being recreated?

Hi, I can see the reasons why the article has been deleted, but why has it been protected for being recreated? I want to recreate it without any copyright infringements. - Nick C (t·c) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was create-protected because after I deleted it, somebody else recreated the copyright violation. If you say you can rewrite it without infringing anyone else's copyright, then i'll unprotect it for now. The Wordsmith 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wavepart

Unless I've missed something (in which case my apologies) you left Wavepart no block notice and have subsequently offered no apology. Why not? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I left no block template. That was an error on my part. I do not, however, intend to apologize as I believe that this user is a sockpuppet of someone. I stand by my block. The Wordsmith 22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Falsifiability. Kind of an important part of proper reasoning. Enough said. WavePart (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't plan to block you again unless you show more suspicious behaviour. Prove me wrong by being a productive editor and I won't trouble you. The Wordsmith 03:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I would hope that in the future you extend a little more good faith toward the next guy. That's honestly what concerns me most. The whole premise by which wikipedia operates starts to fall apart if fear of being blocked starts to influence legitimate content positions that editors can take. (It probably has already to a significant amount, but hopefully this can decrease.) WavePart (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we're getting somewhere. Why have you left no apology for the lack of the block template? Are people-that-you-consider-socks such lowly forms of life that you have no obligations towards them? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I already admitted that it was an error, and I should have left one. Next time I will do so. Keep in mind that I am a fairly new admin and have not blocked many people, so sometimes I make mistakes. WavePart, I apologise for not leaving a template (though I still feel that the block itself was correct). The Wordsmith 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that apology William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re . FWIW, since I've been critical of you, I think the evidence for not-new-user-ishness that you list there is good William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I felt it was about as compelling as you can get without a Checkuser, Scibaby or not. It wasn't that I just went with my gut feeling, I really took time to comb through the account's contributions. Some claim that I assumed bad faith and blocked without looking carefully, but that isn't true. There is more evidence that I found when analysing his edits, but what I posted in my statement is a fairly representative sample of what I discovered. He may end up being a productive contributor, sockpuppet or not - only time will tell. He seems to be editing in other areas now, so my immediate concerns have been at least partially alleviated. Anyway, I appreciate your comment. The Wordsmith 08:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll just point out that you may be wrong in saying "sockpuppet"; he could be a returning user (he could also be the ip-edited-in-2001-2003 but that is improbable), which would make him an alternate account, which is permissible, not a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is possible, yes, however the "alternative plausible explanation" that he gave to get unblocked makes no mention of this. He mentions a few IP edits 8 years ago, but by now he would have completely forgotten the content policies. I'm fairly certain things like 3RR didn't even exist 8 years ago. Instead of concocting that story about seeing something in the news and coming here to edit, if he had simply stated "Yes, I am a WP:CLEANSTART account and/or had a previous account here, and i'll disclose that to a functionary" I would have been willing to unblock immediately, provided said functionary could confirm that the previous account was not malicious or banned. So while your alternate theory is plausible, the user hasn't mentioned that. The Wordsmith 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)