Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FellGleaming (talk | contribs) at 18:11, 23 April 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

About Me

I am a U.S. citizen, though I have lived in Europe and Asia, and at present (April 08) have visited over 50 different countries. I am also a regular pelagic sailor, though I recently sold my 40' Ketch and am now again on dry land.

I am (was?) an avid spelunker, though its been a few years since I engaged regularly.

Welcome

Hello, FellGleaming, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Apis (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA: warning

This is a PA and enirely unjustified. You will be blocked if you persist William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

At no time have I engaged in a personal attack, though your threats here could certainly be construed as one. In additiona, your recent vandalism and edit warring in the Fred Singer article violates those mentioned policies, as well as WP:NPOV and is a clear attempt to create a Coat Rack article. If you continue to ignore policy and abuse your administrator status, I will seek arbitration.FellGleaming (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Block notice

was a second personal attack accusing the same user as above of vandalism for edits which are clearly good faith, despite the above warning. You have just repeated the accusation for a third time above. Your account has been blocked for 24 hours. --BozMo talk 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out one detail to the reviewing admin: the term vandalism was used once in an edit summary and then again after a warning on the other user's talk page. The use on the other user's talk page was not to explain, as far as I can see, it was to repeat. However I would also stress I would encourage any reviewing admin to unblock if they feel the block was unjustified: I am happy if you disagree I just do them on my reading of the rules. --BozMo talk 15:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it a little disturbing that you would block this user for a few reasons. You were not asked on Wiki by William to look at the situation. William did not post on AN/I either, so how did you even find out of the issue? You have come to Williams defense numerous times on his RfC, AN/I pages etc. The bigger issue is that William has an open RfC in which he is accused of blocking people he is in an edit dispute with. Your history editing Global Warming articles with similar views as Williams, your repeated clear defense of him and the fact that no on Wiki conversation took place where William asked you to investigate, seems to allude that you are not a "uninvolved administrator" or better that you are not what the policy had in mind, meaning someone with no interest in the dispute. This also seem excessive as the user reverted then issued a warning for what he perceived as vandalism, it was not a "repeated attack" as eluded to, but a revert and template for the revert. Though I do not think William was vandalizing the page, I am in agreement that the revert was justified as the source was not valid. The block however is suspect and seems over excessive. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about this past relationship you detail between Bozmo and Connolley, but I suspected it from the fact that Bozmo blocked me within *two minutes* of my posting this to my own talk page. I imagine he just IM'd Bozmo and asked him to apply the block.

And, of course, as I said below, I only replied on Connolley's talk page after he threatened me here. FellGleaming (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a pending RfC on William discussing his blocking of two users he was in a dispute with on another article unrelated to Global Warming. Another user who has made comments to the RfC has detailed what he states is a history of William blocking people he is in a dispute with. That is why I find Bozmo's participation suspicious or just highly convenient. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. Just to clarify I watch a number of user's talk pages including WMCs, which is how I noticed the personal attack left on his page. WMC was not in contact with me by any medium on the issue. The suggestion I am in some way involved because I have edited a few of the same articles as him or sometimes supported him would rule out most WP admins. I have never edited Fred Singer or heard of him but I am not a climatologist. --BozMo talk 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that you have WMC's personal page on watch indicates you're not a disinterested administrator. Also, given Connolley's edit history in the Singer article, I think the use of the word "vandalism" is justified. You can argue that I'm wrong, but its clearly not intended as any personal attack...and it certainly wasn't "repeated." FellGleaming (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oddly the topic is not just about a climatologist, but about Global Warming, do you edit articles related to that topic? Stating Singer is a climatologist, is a bit of an understatement. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it was an article on Misplaced Pages and I do edit articles there. So does this mean I cannot be uninterested? --BozMo talk 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The question seems specific, do you edit Global Warming articles? I do not think I stated you are interested if you edit articles about anything, nor do I see how you could have mistaken my comments to stating that. Hopefully that clarified however the misunderstanding. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked his contributions log; he does in fact edit numerous articles on GW. In the past month alone, he has many times reverted many changes which didn't support his POV. In short, he's far from a disinterested observer, both on this paticular article and on GW in general.FellGleaming (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you may know the answer: I have not made any major contribution to any of the GW articles but I tinker at the edges with reverting vandalism and checking references sometimes. Probably the high number of vandal reverts makes the main GW articles one of my most edited pages, and it is amongst around 450 pages which I watch. --BozMo talk 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Among many other unexplained reverts to various GW articles, how does this constitute "vandalism"? You have a lengthy history of engaging in the same behavior as Connolley...reverting any change with doesn't promote your POV. ( said FellGleaming)

It may have escaped your notice that this was a serial edit by a blocked sockpuppet. However you are getting close to a personal attack on both me and WMC so please be careful about your allegations. --BozMo talk 15:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You stated: "You have a lengthy history of engaging in the same behavior as Connolley...reverting any change with doesn't promote your POV." Does this mean you issued a block against Connolley as well? --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That bit was FellGleaming not me.

Threatening people who are questioning your actions with a block is against the blocking policy as well. You should know better. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So now people can't even question your actions, without being threatened with additional action??FellGleaming (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am entirely happy for any of my actions to be questioned and happy to provide patient explanation. I am also happy admitting to mistakes (not in this case tho) and apologizing when needed. However saying I am guilty of "reverting any change with doesn't promote your POV" is a personal attack, and not a question. --BozMo talk 16:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused in the exchange, did you just not state that Connolley engaged in the same behavior? Meaning you are then issuing a personal attack against Connolley? --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake I see. Perhaps you should step away from this page if you feel the need to block people further, especially if they are already blocked. Just to add an uninvolved admin will visit and make a decision I am sure. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So where oh where do you think I said anything about threatening people with blocks or blocking them? I just asked someone to be careful not to do a personal attack. --BozMo talk 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This back and forth is becoming a mess, and it does not seem Bozmo that your presence here is going to afford any additional understanding of the situation, and is perhaps agitating FellGleaming. I think we should all leave this for a 3rd party to decide. FellGleaming, I ask you revise your amendment as I never stated Bozmo and Connolley have engaged in this behavior before. I did state that I found it odd that someone who is "buddies" to Connolley, and has repeatedly defended him blocking people he is in disputes with, would respond so quickly and block a user that Connolley just finished threatening. Especially considering that person simply reverted an edit as vandalism and then issued a template. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Write Stuff. I am correcting my amendment accordingly.FellGleaming (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bozmo, I ask that you again objectively review your own actions here, as this additional information clearly demonstrates you have overstepped your bounds. I am not a vindicative person and if you correct this now, I am more than willing to let the matter drop. However, if you persist, I feel it is my duty to pursue the matter to the fullest extent allowed by Misplaced Pages arbitration policy, which includes filing a grievance in regards to your actions. Again, I urge you to consider what's best for Misplaced Pages, and not your own personal beliefs and relationships here.FellGleaming (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rightho. Thanks for this, I appreciate it. Of course I would have appreciated recognition of fault on your part even more, but we cannot have everything. Anyway I have reviewed the appropriateness of the block and I am happy with my actions. I am also happy that I acted within policy and with no form of conflict of interest. I am also inclined to the view that the correctness of the block (which is to prevent further problems not to punish) was supported by the energy with which you felt you should continue to argue the issue. That said a reviewing admin is welcome to take another view, that's fine by me. --BozMo talk 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So to you, the mere fact that I argue against my ban is proof that it's justified? By this logic, your continued attempts to justify your actions here are proof you realize how tenuous your position is. FellGleaming (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FellGleaming (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I began editing the Fred Singer article, which in original form was clearly a Coat Rack article, designed to portray Singer as a charlatan, due to his skepticism over global warming. I merely inserted some additional biographical material intended to balance the article, and give the reader a more accurate description of Singer's career (which spans many decades, and in fact has little to do with GW).

Administrator William Connolley-- who from his personal page is a GW partisan and who has a lengthy history of deleting *any* positive material from the Singer article -- removed my material, claiming it was "unreliable". I readded it, this time using a different source. He deleted it again, with the same claim. I then inserted it a third time, this time with a source already in the article, being used by another editor to make a negative remark. Connolley then performed a block rollback, removing this and several other edits of mine. As I read the vandalism policy, Connolley's bad faith edits constitute such, so I reverted his changes with a note to such. Connolley then posted a threat to my talk page, saying I had personally attacked him, and would be blocked. I replied to his talk page, explaining my justification for using the term vandalism. In less than 15 minutes, another administrator blocked me for "repeated personal attacks". I do not believe my use of the word "vandalism" is a personal attack in this case, and even if it was, it was certainly not "persistent attacks". I used the word *once*, and (after he complained) explained my use on my and his talk pages.

The speediness and unjustification for this block leads me to believe that administrators Connolley and BozMo have a personal relationship, and I ask that a NEUTRAL administrator who has no lengthy history of either promoting or denying the GW issue review this block, and the actions of the administrators involved.

AMENDMENT: A user above has pointed out that administrators Bozmo and Connolley are friends, and that Connolley has an outstanding RfC for blocking users with which he has been involved in edit disputes. Furthermore, I have just noticed that Connolley was previous involved in a revert war on this same article, and temporarily barred from editing any climate change article. I ask that you take this information into account when reviewing my block.

Decline reason:

I see no vandalism from WMC. That means that you're engaged in content dispute. That means that people should use dispute resolution instead of slapping each other with vandalism warnings. Request denied. MaxSem 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you for looking at this. I accept my determination of vandalism was incorrect. What I dispute is that my single usage of a single word constitutes "repeated personal attacks". I believe my posting my justification of my usage to mine and WMC's talk pages was a good-faith attempt use the dispute system, and in no way any form of repeatedly attacking anyone.FellGleaming (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)