Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:07, 21 January 2014

		Civility Award
		For your tireless effort to reach consensus on climate change articles Dkriegls (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quicklinks & text for my quick reference

• WP:WikiProject Inline Templates
• Block evading IP sockpuppet; see ]

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Something I wish everyone understood as well as Leonard McCoy (Star Trek)

When planet Vulcan debated a proposal to withdraw from the Federation, Starship Enterprise was sent to represent the Federation, and humans specifically. At the planetary debates, Leonard McCoy took center stage. Audience outbursts were permitted, and so here is one of McCoy's answers to his main heckler:

The data about Earth speaks for itself-” Selv’s thin, angry voice came back.

“No data speaks for itself,” McCoy said, forceful. “Data just lies there. People speak. The idiom ‘speaks for itself’ almost always translates as ‘If I don’t say something about this, no one will notice it.’ Sloppy thinking, Selv! You are dealing with second- and third-hand data. You have never been to Earth, you don’t understand our language – and this is made especially clear by some of the material you claim to be ‘translating’ from Earth publications: an Andorian spirit-dancer with a Ouija board and a Scrabble set could do a better job. Though I must admit I really liked the article on the evolution of the blood sacrifice in Terran culture. That is not what major-league football is for…”

From the novel Spock's World, (Easily googleable... this scene is in googlebooks at the moment)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

25-50-25

• 25% of people will be mad at you (or unteachable) no matter what you do, so don't waste your time trying to change them.
• 25% of people will be thrilled with you (or self-directed learners) so don't waste your time trying to change them.
• Just focus on the 50% where you can make a difference.

Michigan global warming external link spamming IP

Attempts at communicating with the IP and other details of this story have been moved to their own page.

Also,

• Raw data, IP sock's editing sessions - Thanks Arthur!
• Quickie analysis of raw data for Jan - June 2012
• My first ANI (August 2, 2012)
• My second ANI (August 20, 2012)

IN SUM, too bad the IP doesn't just pick a single article at a time, and spend a little time to actually make it better instead of just sticking in newslinks all the time. He is distracting other editors from making substantive improvements. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

PS A play-dumb exchange April 2013 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

ARBCC discretionary sanctions notification

I was templated with the ugly ARBCC warning and deleted it for looks. Here is the ensuing discussion NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, but would you mind explaining with diffs the reason you felt the need to template me? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In terms of template or not template, the discretionary sanctions system doesn't give use the option. The reason for the notification was the edit to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. All of the users who made an edit on the 31st have been notified which makes dealing with anything which comes up later much easier. Basically the purpose of that template is as a cover for later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've passed out enough of the same warnings myself, though I have preferred to write original text most of the time. I once asked for ARB clarification if I, a regular editor, could hand out notices and log them as you have done, but the answer was that DS was under general review and I should await the outcome. Do you happen to know what developed in that effort? I haven't checked lately. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Still going it's a job for the new Committee, once they get their heads around the job. In terms of WP:AE a warning which meets the requirements at WP:AC/DS#Warnings and WP:AC/DS#For administrators. {{Uw-sanctions}} is considered to the warning which should be used. And the draft discretionary sanctions or more restrictive about {{Ds/alert}} being the only thing which can be used to notify a user on their talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So I've been telling others about ARBCC for the same purpose you templated me. For example, see these three from the last 10 days. (here and here and here; I'm just a regular editor, and for a long while now I mainly edit in climate change area. My objective in telling people of ARBCC is prevention, and I'm just a regular editor. Do my notices have "stick" for action at AE? In legal terms we would say the recipient of one of my notices has "Actual Notice", but the receiving party might try to argue for summary dismissal on grounds I lacked jurisdiction to serve notice and the notice was just as void as a non-existent notice. In street terms, do my notices have enough "stick" for follow thru at AE without undue worries of a boomerang ? Thanks for advice.... any help in keeping discussions constructive in the climate pages is appreciated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As long as it meets the requirements at WP:AC/DS#Warnings and WP:AC/DS#For administrators which {{Ds/sanctions}} is designed to do and it is logged on the case page then I don't really care who issued the warning (if it's by a sockpuppet it gets difficult). Re your three examples, even if they were logged, I would say that Cwmacdougall and Darkness Shines would meet the requirements but Punksta may not. My standard is (which is my interpretation of WP:AC/DS):

1. Does it link to the decision authorising sanctions?
2. Does it tell the user what they need to do?
3. Does it suggest possible consequences for not following policies? This one isn't as important.

So overall, I have no problem with a non-admin issuing the notification as long as it meets the requirements and it's logged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I was told that for now regular eds should not be logging. Which is why I reverted the log entries I had made including my self-notice. If you know of anything on which I can hang my hat to log notices in the future, please let me know! Thanks for the supportive discussion here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why, there are a few non-admins who log warnings. I had the same feeling before I got the mop. I don't think the Committee has made a decision as to whether non-admins can log but in the mean time as far as I am concerned a logged notification is a logged notifications. As long as you follow WP:Involved (ie you aren't warning everyone on the other side of disputes) I can't see a problem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I usually thank people on the other side of disputes if they have presented reasoned discussion, RSs, and work within the process. But I have little patience for SOAP and FORUM, which is what we usually get. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hence the need for DS. Thanking them should be fine, but warning them about DS while you are engaged in a content dispute for example would not be okay (and would probably get you sanctioned). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that someone who posts RS-free SOAP and FORUM in the climate articles is not really engaged in a climate-related content dispute. Rather, they are soapboxing. Hence, I feel that INVOLVED, hinging on it does on there being a content dispute, does not stand in the way of a climate page editor delivering the notice. But I do try to tread lightly and rely on other climate editors also ringing the SOAP bell, because sometimes someone else might see something I don't, as recently happened... and then, after a lot of further discussion, another opined it was still soap. Seemed appropriate for me to deliver the notice in that case. Just for example purposes and not meaning to argue, do you agree ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. The notifications aren't necessarily (although in practice that's how it works most of the time) intended to be used after editors agree that they are breaching policy. How I see it should work is the user makes an edit, the user is notified of discretionary sanctions and that's logged, the user makes edits which are against policy (RS-free SOAP and FORUM) and an admin warns/sanctions or the user is reported to WP:AE. So as far as I am concerned, as soon as they made their first edit to the climate change topic they could have been notified. Does that make sense or have a just muddled it all up? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In theory that works fine, but in practice that would create an enormous secretarial headache. One solution would be to explicitly demarcate the pages where ARBCC applies, and to let the server pop up a warning box when such a page is edited. But I don't see that happening either. A better solution is to encourage anyone to pass and log these notices emphasizing that doing so is not evidence of a BATTLEGROUND mentality.... which is consistent with the disclaimer at the bottom of the template saying the template is not to be taken as an accusation of wrongdoing. In other words, If getting the template is no evidence of wrong, giving and logging should not be evidence of wrong either! Such an action would enhance prevention by protecting good faith editors from fear of backlash if they try to mildly referee their own subject areas prior to formal complaints being filed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the DS review about whether editing a page with an editnotice was enough but it was decided that it wasn't. I think once the new system is rolled out it'll be clearer that they don't imply wrongdoing. But the problem is always going to be the perception that it's being used to intimidate another user. Regarding non-admins giving notifications and logging, {{Ds/sanction}} is coded so that it can be issued by non-admin - have a look at the template's documentation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for a great discussion, which I think has come to a close. I will check out the template doc and ping your talk page if I still have questions after. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about a source and WP:BLPPRIMARY

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a question I raised here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll look and if I have anything to say and don't think I've been canvassed I'll be glad to opine. Thanks for asking. I think this is the pinpoint diff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Even if we disagree on some content(NASA video) i always appreciate your input. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I thought that word was spelled "PITA" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

AE rebuttal format

Generally in any of the arbcom/arb enforcement procedures, users are generally supposed to comment only in their own area, but there are many ways of doing so. You can post under a subheading, either using a lower level heading than the main section or a line of bold text. You can also just indent on your initial remarks. You can also indent under reply to a particular individual to keep up a conversation of sorts. Some examples are below for your edification.

===Statement by Sailsbystars===

Here I present evidence blah blah blah (sig)

The statement by User:soandso needs to be seen in the context of xyz (sig)

====Rebuttal to SomeOtherGuy====

SomeOtherGuy gets this wrong (sig)

Their reply still misses a.b.c (sig)

'''Reply to Uninvolved admin'''

Here's more evidence they asked for (sig)

Sailsbystars (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Test the new alert system

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for Climate change, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.

Template:Z33

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for , which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.

Template:Z33