This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hammersoft (talk | contribs) at 20:48, 10 December 2008 (→My block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:48, 10 December 2008 by Hammersoft (talk | contribs) (→My block)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X.

This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering.

If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.

My actions
Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions

Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question.

The Holding Pen

Secret trials considered harmful

Well, I've read the evidence: general impression is that this is revenge by DHMO's friends for his RFA failure. Why? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And now I've read the judgement. And it seems to me that arbcomm has run itself off the rails. It would seem that they've got themselves infected by the bad blood from DHMO's RFA. So:

Given the sanctions, which are more humiliating that restrictive, the case was clearly non-urgent.
There is a good deal of interpretation and selective quoting in the evidence. I don't see any eveidence that OM was given any opportunity to respond, and that is bad (looking at OM's page, I think this response from ~~arbcomm~~ is revealing: when asked directly if OM was given the chance to respond, the reply is weaselly).
I'm missing the result of the user RFC that obviously the arbcomm insisted on being gone through first. Could someone point me to it?
Could all these people please get back to the job of deciding the cases validly put before them, most obviously the G33 and SV/etc ones

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever the actual substance of the complaint: I'm deeply concerned about ArbCom (or unspecified parts of it) trawling through a years worth of contributions, selectively quoting parts that support a certain point of view, assemble all this into a large document, and without ~~further~~ input from the user in question or from the community issue an edict from above. And for good measure they (?) declare a priori that an appeal is possible, but will be moot. Well, maybe it's acceptable because, as we all know, the committee is infallible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit, my prior opinion was that arbcomm is generally slow but usually got the right answer. In this case, I'm doubtful. BTW, I'm almost sure I had a run-in with OM once. Can anyone remember when/where? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you have not yet noticed: This seems to be deeper. . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy @#%$! I was wondering how all of them took leave of their senses at once. R. Baley (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

!?! That looks bad William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this some sort of hallucination?????? WTF??? BTW, you did run into me, because you blocked someone in a manner that I felt unfair. When I found out you are/were one of the "good guys" on global warming, I had mixed feelings. Now, I feel safe that you're watching over the article, especially since Raymond Arritt is gone.OrangeMarlin 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole notion of "good guys" and "bad guys" is a seriously poisonous and harmful way of seeing fellow contributors. It encourages the worst excesses and does not lend itself to reaching consensus with the dark side/evil ones/whatever. Orderinchaos 16:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I like to think that the people reverting vandalism might be considered "good", and the vandals "bad". Perhaps thats a bit too old-school, and you prefer a more nuanced approach? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking William's interpretation of good and bad editors. However, I consider NPOV vandals to be vandals too. Yes there is a nuance to all of this, and that's the problem. It's difficult.OrangeMarlin 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So whats going on?

Most discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters, it seems.

Presumably someone will be along to sort out this car crash at some point. In the meantime I've been trying to see whats going on, and I've found...

As we know, KL has repudiated FT2's postings . But rather suggests that secret proceedings were indeed going on.
tB has "temporarily" blanked the page , which is nice, though not as good as "permanently"
Jimbo has weighed in, saying basically "I haven't got a clue whats going on" . Later updated to the Arbitration Committee itself has done absolutely nothing here , which does rather suggest FT2 acting alone in acting, though doesn't address discussions.
CM is cryptic turns on the interpretation of "formal" in "formal proceeding", a semantic point that is not vacuous
JPG says its miscommunication and begs for patience but confirms the secret case
FN thanks us for our patience as does Mv
Jv appears to endorse FT2's version, adding the OM case to those recently closed and posting the result to ANI . How does Jv know this is the will of arbcomm? And interesting question, which I've just asked him, and which he is studiously ignoring.

Other arbs appear to be far too busy to deal with trivia of this type.

So its hard to know what *has* happened. But clearly its not just FT2 running amok, or the other arbs would say so. My best guess is that secret trials (discussions?) were indeed in progress and that they are too embarrassed to admit it; and that there is some frantic behind-the-scenes talking going on to try to get a story straight.

CM . The statement is bizarre and is going to leave a lot of people (including me) unhappy. It looks like "it was a regrettable miscommunication, please don't ask any more questions" is going to be the line.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC) & 20:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What stuns me is how any arbitrator thought that allegations of uncivil behavior (however true) needed to be urgently addressed in a blatantly out-of-process manner while a case of full-bore socking by a repeat offender, resulting in high-profile articles being locked for weeks, was allowed to languish. Hopefully the committee realizes they cannot put the business of Arbitration on hold to focus solely on this drama, and will continue the voting. - Merzbow (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, still baffled by that one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like the official line is it all ended happily ever after , nothing to see, move along here William M. Connolley (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And FT2 is terribly busy

Hmm, so... it all ended happily ever after and everyone forgot about it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten. Who knows if it will happen again or is happening now. OrangeMarlin 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2 is back secret activities. I can't believe it.OrangeMarlin 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed by clicking the above link. Both Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & yourself are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction in the case now ceases to be in effect.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcomm at its worst: a feeble wimp-out and a waste of everyones time. But thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm here: 2008-10-02 Block log); 23:08:48 . . Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (c'mon, for Giano this was very mild, and we can't bully people with blocks into writing more kindly). Apparently is not incivil; and we have an explicit double-standard for G William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Current

Schools Misplaced Pages

Anything serious missing from environment and climate and the weather? --BozMo talk 10:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Env: Deforestation. Is it odd to have Org F, Coll F, but not Farming itself? Having Oceanic climate is a bit weird, because you don't have all the other possible climate types. Earth Day? Environmental law? Ecology? There's a lot a lot in Category:Environment William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Farming is a divert to agriculture which is in the DVD but not listed seperately as farming. I need to update the redirect tables. SchoolsWP:Ecology is there but in another index, I will double list it. Environmental law I am adding. --BozMo talk 09:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just adding a message where I'm sure you won't see this... does this need more work? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Biased abuse

you seem to be confusing your self with POV pushing how dare you claim im a vandal when your vandalistic edits on himalaya point the vandalistic tendancy towards you stop adding the POV term POK "pakistan occupied kashmir" you might aswell protect that himalaya page for a century because if i see your POV pushing term POK introduced again i promise i shall revert your garbage 81.158.128.76 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a teensy bit confused. I haven't claimed you're a vandal, quite the reverse. Assuming that is that you're the same as User:86.158.236.65, User:86.158.234.2 et al.; I said I see no evidence that this IP is a vandal. OTOH I will revert your edits and block you if you continue to edit war without discussion; get yourself an account (or re-start using User:Nangparbat and start trying to resolve this long-standing issue by discussion on talk page. What you're doing may serve to vent your anger temporarily, but it won't actually work William M. Connolley (talk)

Hey bub just to let you know if you keep adding your trashy terms such as POK to himalaya i shall revert till the day i die even if i do die someone will open there eyes to your sly way of POV pushing against pakistan typical western hatred against anything muslim untill your biased racism ends good night 86.151.122.134 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

ps who the hell is nangparbat and stop using it as a excuse to block me your starting to act a wee bit desperate now 86.156.211.67 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck in your one-man quest for world domination. If you're interested in discussing the issues, do stop by and talk politely. Until then. Oh, and "there" should be "their"; "until" has one "l"; and if you'll read the bit I referred you to above you'll see I was trying to defend you. You're doing your best to be unlovable, but its not too late William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

world domination lol thats rich coming from some westerners ha ha if your short sighted maybe you could read my edits summarys and see my edits dont violate anything its just your love affair with the grey editor which seems to be clouding your already tainted judgement p.s i dont really need to be polite to a admin who doesnt even understand the slightest about biased editing but then has the nerve to call himself a admin 86.156.211.67 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that "your" is spelt "you're" in this context, and sentences start with capital letters. "I" should be capitalised too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

blah blah anyways stop trying to change the subject the point is that POK term of yours will eventually be removed as other non biased editors will soon discover it on the himalaya page and your sounding like a sour old lady now 23:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But I *am* a sour old lady - didn't you know? Meanwhile - POK - you must mean "Pakistan ?occupied? Kashmir" I suppose? I really don't know, I've just been reverting you, not reading it. Please realise that I don't care about the text one way or another. Once you've realised that, we could actually try to talk about resolving the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

so you havent been reading the article just blindly reverting be carefull son look what blind rage got america into a whole heap of trouble maybe sit down and read rather then set up more wars around wikipedia i suggest you retire 86.153.128.163 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation still poor but spelling improving: only "carefull" this time; an easy mistake to make. I'll ignore the "son", old fruit, since you're clearly on the young side yourself. I decline your retiring suggestion William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tracking

Re RFAR

Would you like to sport my candidature userbox, to be seen on my userpage? This will be minimally canvassed by me, but the box shows Shusaku so you might be the one person to want to hear about it. Oh yes, and see Giano question to me as ArbCom candidate. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Giano is as foul-mouthed as ever, and as ever no-one does anything about it and his many friends excuse him. I will certainly vote for candidates who are prepared to tackle this issue, but last time round that wasn't you (or was it? I must look up the history again); last I looked at RFar that excluded the majority of the current committee. I await events with interest William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that I was on leave early in the year, you may need to look up the Durova case, end 2007. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that diff, I missed it in the noise earlier. I see that Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by policies such as no personal attacks, no legal threats, and the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums., which clearly violates, and various other statements over there too. I note that you've recused yourself in this case; can you explain why (please to remember that one of the issues in this case is things that are "obvious" to everyone that not everyone knows). Daniel too William M. Connolley (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Recusal because the alternate "drag act" account was used to edit my candidature questions page. Basically I was on the receiving end of the foolishness. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Wouldn't recuse under those circumstances. That way, all you have to do to make yourself invulnerable to arbcomm is to insult them all. I still think you should say why on the arbcomm page, though William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Annotated as you suggest. (Shhh, I think such a strategy might be overoptimistic as to outcome; but tell no one.) 22:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What's far more worrying than the Giano issue is Charles' filing of an RFC simply because another editor dares to treat him as if he were nothing more than a lowly admin. Guettarda (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I believe in dispute resolution. Exhaustive and exhausting efforts on my User talk had failed to get any sense out of Slrubenstein. So prior efforts were made. You actually don't know my motivations: like many others round this case, you are jumping to conclusions. My problem was with Slrubenstein's multiple blind spots in relation to unblocking and other policy. What is more, Slrubenstein has rarely unblocked: but when Slrubenstein unblocks, it has tended to be in high-profile situations, without going through the formalities, and with an idiosyncratic view of policy and the requirements of the situation. Therefore it was "third time unlucky": in previous situations there was no more than met the eye. But this time there was much more, and Slrubenstein should have asked, instead of rushing in ahead of another admin who followed protocol. We went over that, and apart from an odd taunt and gross imputation, the matter was settled. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As for Durova, I have directly requested that she go over to my Candidate page and raise her points about me, rather than dropping them into discussions where they are at best tangential. Not only do I believe in dispute resolution, I believe people should address gripes and beefs in the correct quarter. She has twice tried to make me the subject of the dispute with Slrubenstein, which is a gross misreading of WP:WHEEL. (NB that Slrubenstein simply brushed away the Connolley-Geogre case as some sort of tyrannical ArbCom plot against his rights. WMC might just have an opinion about that.) It is clear that people saying bad things about others is quite effective. But I am agin it. Durova, in my view, should put her issues with me before the community. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So over to William: which is more worrying? Charles Matthews (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Too much fighting. Well, I've just reviewed Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#David_Gerard. MB gets my vote, and DG if he'll stand. But I'm struggling to see any evidence there of anyone acting to their credit. So, for the moment, I'll leave it there William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby

When blocking Scibaby, you really do need to file an RFCU and have a checkuser come in and (1) drain the swamp of any other socks, and (2) and long-term block any IPs he's used. Otherwise, more socks pop up and it becomes harder to retroactively undo all of their edits (because there are more interevening edits). Raul654 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Normally I don't bother. Will try to remember in future. Are you standing for Arbcom this time? Please do William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to stand for arbcom - I really, really want to wrap up my phd in the next 18 months and that really does cut into my Misplaced Pages time. If I were to run, I'd end up being idle most of the time. Raul654 (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame. I think they need some help, and some solid competent people with bottom William M. Connolley (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"some solid competent people with bottom"????--BozMo talk 14:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Jack Aubrey sense William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist as Dirty Harry

Gosh. Thanks for letting us know where you stand on this one. Was a surprise though. --John (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he was DH. But its a useful analogy William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and have posted a longer response at User talk:Fyslee#SA as Dirty Harry explaining my thinking if you are interested. --John (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with you, and now I find I disagree with F too. Its a long time since I saw DH (I do recall the famous scene where they look into a window and see a nude, and the rookie says "now I know why they call you Dirty Harry"; I don't think anyone is accusing SA of that) but as I recall it DH *is* ethical but unorthodox William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Axiom page edit war

William,

I'm the lead developer on Axiom, a free and open source computer algebra project. I was one of the original developers at IBM Research in the 80s and 90s. Axiom went commercial with NAG and then was withdrawn from the market and given to me under the modified BSD license. Axiom is not a commercial product. In fact, I lose thousands of dollars a year keeping it alive and free.

I have spent the last 7 years restoring, rebuilding, and leading this project. I have over 100 people subscribed to the mailing list and a personal contact mailing list of several hundred. I keep in close contact with many users, some on list, some off list.

Axiom forked nearly 18 months ago and those projects (Fricas and OpenAxiom) have gone their separate ways. This information is listed in two places on the page, one at the top and one at the bottom. While interesting historically, the forks have had almost no impact on the Axiom project and are no longer discussed on the mailing list or in private emails, indicating that it is no longer of general interest to the Axiom community.

I updated the page with current information (the video is the latest major event) and removed the redundant information about the forks (notice that I did NOT remove the information from the bottom of the page).

This anonymous user seems to have made it his mission in life to perserve this "non-event" at the top of the page. Given that there is only a small amount of information that can be displayed on the first page of a browser this is vital real estate for major project events.

I have no idea who this "Axiom user" might be. His IP address resolves to Florida but no mailing list entry I have resolves to the same address so I have no idea who this person might be. Clearly he does not contribute to the project in any way. He has NOT been contributing to maintaining the pages. For instance, the change on the comparison page that I made included updating the latest release date of the project (from Jan 2008 to Nov 2008). If he HAD been maintaining the pages he would have updated that information (in March, May, July, or Sept releases).

Further, this anonymous user refuses to identify himself and refuses to contact me offline (see the Axiom discussion page).

In the interest of peaceful negotiations I have left the line in for now. However, without further cooperation from this anonymous user I feel that he should be blocked from making changes until he attempts to cooperate.

Thank you for your time.

Daly (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Tim Daly

Thanks for commenting. Be aware that people are permitted to be anonymous here; there is no obligation for him to respond to your request for contact. He is obliged to contribute to the talk page though. COI covers more than just commercial stuff. You may well find the process painful and tedious; please contact me again if there are problems and I can help William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You've lost me...

Ok, you've lost me, I don't get the G4 message. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Contrary to my usual policy, I decided not to watch the arbcomm pages (too much activity). I've answered there now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, tell me about it. So many damn questions. I forgot to update Giggy's later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

Stop harassing me. --Igor Windsor (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I've blocked you. Does that count? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

I am trying to move the discussion to my talk page. Presumably you don't object if I leave a message to warn others on the Talk:Dark ages about that? It does not seem unreasonable. After all, the project is about building an encyclopedia.Peter Damian (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

PD

William, do you think you could reverse the block? It was a clear violation certainly, but one bone headed enough to suggest it was otherwise harmless sulky behavior. Or perhaps baiting, who knows. Either way, I don't see much point to it, and I think giving him some sort of symbolic freedom will do more good than harm at this point.--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked earlier about this ... but why is PD blocked from editing articles? What's wrong with you people? Creating content is what we're all here for, it's what PD is most appreciated for, it's where he wasn't causing trouble. I also suggested this to FT2 who replied 'I'm way ahead of you'. Tznkai, WMC, you blocks were ill conceived, unthoughtful and unhelpful. --Duk 16:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

William and Tznkai - I think I shared your belief about the 'clarity' of the unblock conditions yesterday, although there was some confusion on PD's talk page. However in light of the statement by Thatcher, a close reading of which, does not demonstrate a clear agreement - but a quandry as to how he wanted to progress - perhaps it might be better to go a little more gently here, untill FT2 and Arbcom comment further. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't do the latest block.--Tznkai (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

See also this comment I made that was lost---Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I know Tznkai, I saw that, your plea here and your comments at rfar - I wasn't trying to aportion blame - merely saying, the situation is far from clear. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

T, sorry, I respect your opinion but in this case I disagree (I hope its clear you didn't do this block; it would be obvious from PD's talk page). Jc: I've read Thatchers statement, and re-read it just now. It is quite clear in re-affirming the parole, ending "I restricted Damian to his user space and RFAR and punted the matter to Arbcom". Until arbcomm says otherwise, or Thatcher says otherwise, I believe his parole has been correctly imposed and he will have to live with it. Wiki has rules; you can WP:IAR but you do so at your peril. Duk: why is PD banned? I really have no idea as to the root cause, not having read so far back. You are missing the point William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea as to the root cause, not having read so far back. Then leave this one to those who have, please. --Duk 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Duk, on its face violating restrictions placed in good faith is disruptive behavior. Perhaps you don't agree with that, but I hope you accept that position as reasonable.--Tznkai (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable if you don't know the history and missed the discussion about how unreasonable an article editing restriction is. No offense to Thatcher, but he punted. --Duk 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he did, under very clear conditions. I hope the arbcomm will accept the punt; if they won't, I suppose it will be down to some nebulous community consensus to decide William M. Connolley (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I could add: from the top of this page, you can guess that I'm dubious about FT2. Which would make me sympathetic to PD, except for the way he has contributed to discussions of his block. Further: it seems clear that the arbcomm are reluctant to offend "one of their own", which is a Poor Show. Though that is only my interpretation, and not a mandate for action William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone watching care to offer an opinion on this new editor? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My ArbCom candidacy

You're right, of course. I am probably not the guy to offer the hanging judge option to the community. I should have realised it earlier; I was very cognizant of the fact that there was a disconnect between how I was answering questions and the platform I was standing upon. At the time I had kind of chalked it up to people asking me the wrong questions; asking me who I am rather than what I planned to do. But these are probably not as seperable as I had thought (or possibly, Arbitration committee members simply aren't expected to act that way). Either way, I think your oppose was correct.

I'm not sure why I bothered to drop you this note. I'm not particularly here to thank you, I guess, just admit that you were right. Do with that as you will.

Cheers WilyD 18:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, well I guess being right is worth something. Sorry. FWIW I have similar concerns about many of the candidates William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Tool has many connotations

User:Tool2Die4 sure does like to insult/bait people on their talk pages, huh? :) --Eastlaw (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does, certainly in the UK and presumably over there. I'm presuming that wasn't a complaint about civility looking for action? You'll need to be more explicit if it was. Meanwhile: I was advised not to reply to opposes for my RFA, and I think its good advice; at least one part of being an admin is leaving conversations alone and not having the last word. RFA is, as various people have said, rather an odd process; apparently requiring your presence at AFD is bizarre. That said, you have somewhat burnt your boats should you ever be interested in a re-run; from the little I've seen you appear sensible, which is the main criterion for a useful admin, so its probably a net loss to wiki. Unless I don't want lawyers taking over wiki, of course. I used to be very strongly anti-lwayer when young, but I've probably matured a bit by now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care if you respond to his insult or not. I just posted this because I noticed that you had recently blocked him, and I wanted you to know that he hasn't really changed his behavior. Having said that, I really couldn't care less about RFA, as I have no intentions of running again anytime soon. I will only run again if am renominated in 12 months and there is clear and convincing that my help is actually needed.

As far as lawyers are concerned, let me just say that the job is nowhere near as glamorous as it looks on television. If you have children, tell them not to go to law school--the subject matter is interesting, but the work is really not all that great. --Eastlaw (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jwjkp

You should know that this user has already reverted once more at Major League Baseball 2K9. Also, can you please review the talk page so you can add your two cents to the debate? I believe my edit passes WP:VERIFY, while the other user claims the source is unreliable and speculating but cannot prove it beyond that.►Chris Nelson 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the matter is too trivial to be worth fighting over. I suggest you show your good sense by ignoring it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider that good sense. The release date for an upcoming video game is not a trivial piece of information. I respect your right to not care, but it's certainly not trivial to those interested in the topic.►Chris Nelson 16:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ over that William M. Connolley (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is probably me just being dense...

... but what did you mean by "G4 poor"? :-) — Coren 16:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats tripped others up; I must be less cryptic. Giggy's questions, number 4 William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. — Coren 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Jwjkp

Happened to see his unblock request--to my mind, he does have a point, removal of unsourced information is usually exempt from 3RR. I'm willing to unblock, provided that he agree to discuss this issue on the article's talk page. I'm also willing to full-protect Major League Baseball 2K9 for a time until this can be hashed out. Does that sound reasonable? Blueboy 96 19:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

He's also agreed to the full-protection and started a discussion on the talk page before you blocked him. I think an unblock is warranted. Blueboy 96 19:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied on his talk page; unsourced isn't exempt, except for BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It would really be nice if the admins discussing this user's block would stop believing User:Jwjkp when he says my edit was unsourced, seeing as how my edit was adding info and a SOURCE from the official website of Major League Baseball.►Chris Nelson 01:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I am seriously appalled by Srkris's ruthless tirade against editors. He continues to write nonsense against us. Can you please do something about it? ] (] · ]) 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Take his talk page off your watchlist William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a better solution than having to simply close my eyes while he is accusing me for his troll-like behavior? As you understand, taking him off my watchlist does nothing. ] (] · ]) 10:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Nothing obliges you to watch his talk page. If you want to read what he writes, watch it. If you don't, don't. If you're wathcing it, the assumption is taht you do want to read what he writes, so should stop complaining about it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

guv

please reevaluate the edit war when you get a chance. and keep in mind i am talking about a long pattern of behavior on more than one article. also, would you mind listing it as unresolved while you look again so that others may offer their opinions as well? thanks Brendan19 (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Answered on WP:AN3. This isn't a 3RR matter: you want WP:DR, if you want anything William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

so is the case closed in your mind or would you mind responding to what i said? Brendan19 (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You have 3R this month, C has 2. I'm not going back into prehistory. As I said: this isn't AN3 stuff, its DR. As an AN3 case, its closed William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

actually these are his december reverts so far... and i count five (now eleven)

and keep in mind the page was protected from november 20 until december 04 (both days in which he was reverting). i see why you say this is DR for joetheplumber, but it seems that you havent looked into anything else ive said. a quick check of his talk page would show edit warring and bullying complaints from an editor (Factchecker atyourservice) about the sarah palin page, edit warring complaints from another editor (therefore) about the barbara west page, edit warring complaints from another editor (the red pen of doom) about the joe the plumber page, edit warring complaints from another editor (mattnad) about the helen jones-kelly page, a friendly 3rr warning from noroton about the political maching page and then there was my warning.

thats 5 edit war complaints from five different editors about 4 different articles. and lets not forget one friendly 3rr warning about a fifth article from a sixth editor. and all of this has been within the past month (since nov 10th, i believe). wouldnt you agree that a pattern of edit warring is easily visible? sorry to bring this up on your talk page, but you didnt respond to my last post on the admin page. please look into this for me when you get a chance. Brendan19 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that as an AN3 issue, this is closed. If it recurs, it might be reportable as a new issue. A number of complaints about 3RR are not evidence of a problem. Trying to solve this with the bludgeon of AN3 isn't going to work William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

well, please dont take offense, but i would like some other opinions. how do i go about doing that? do i just repost the same stuff to the admin page as a separate report or can you reopen it or what? i realize that my first attempt at posting included irrelevant stuff so i could probably do a more accurate version the second time around. anyway, let me know. Brendan19 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to get it looked at again, I would (preferred) post a note saying so to the AN3 talk page or (less so) ask one of the regular admins there on their talk William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

done, thanks. if i dont get a few responses in a decent amount of time i will try your (less so) tactic next. Brendan19 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

Hi there! I noticed that your opposition to my candidacy is based on "too little evidence of relevant activity". While I can't deny I haven't been the most active participant in Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution mechanisms, I urge you to give a look at my answers to FT2's follow-up questions, especially the "Conduct Under Pressure" portion where I illustrate related experience in areas outside of ArbCom or RfC. Thanks for your consideration! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That link didn't sway me. But since you care, I added a question to your questions page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Answered! Thanks for giving me a second chance! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 3RR - with a possible sock perhaps

On (of course) Joe the Plumber

IP 208.164.6.20 2:47 208.164.6.40 2:41 208.164.6.40 2:36 sll on 9 Dec

Note that the second one is listed as a likely sock in and appeared with precisely the same pattern as a previous editor. I have no experience with seeing if two IPs can be guilty of 3RR, but I am pretty sure they are the same person. How are multiple IPs for one person handled? Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi'd page, blocked .40. 3RR applies per person, not per IP William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Afraid of that -- even where the IP is clearly one person? Does that mean an anon person can flout the rule by making sure he keeps getting a new dynamic address? Collect (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. 3RR applies per person. It doesn't matter how many IPs or indeed accounts they use. If person A uses IPs a, b, c, d for break 3RR, then all of a-d can be blocked. Conversely (although very unlikely in practice) if two different people make 2 reverts each from the same IP that wouldn't break 3RR (though how in practice you would prove that I don't know) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In which case, since all three reverts were by one person then those IPs are blockable? Collect (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. I blocked one. There is probably no point blocking the rest, since the person is IP hopping William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

National Conference of Synagogue Youth

Hello,
I recently reported 3 users for edit warring at WP:AN3, Nogrudges.2C_Mrnhghts.2C_.26_208.120.89.198_reported_by_GateKeeperX, resulting in all 3 editors receiving a 24-hour ban. However, it seems that Whoiswhat (talk · contribs), has continued to remove content regarding Baruch Lanner and has reverted edits I made cleaning up major LinkSpam , this account was created on December 6th (the day when the edit warring began), and might be a sock puppet of one of the two blocked users. Could you please take a look at the situation and let me know what you think. Thanks --GateKeeper @ 06:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed that. Let me know if there is more William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My block

I'm not accusing you of anything or casting any insults at you or anything like that, so please do no construe this comment that way. I'd just like to point out that you blocked me and User:2008Olympian for edit warring, when it was me who brought the report and also indicated I would not be editing the article any further. I did not and do not feel this block was proper, nor was I even looking for a block of User:2008Olympian. Effectively, blocking people who bring reports sends the message that edit wars should not be reported by people involved in them. I was asking for assistance, not to be blocked. Next time, I won't ask for assistance. Instead, I'll let the blatant fair use violations continue as is the case that User:2008Olympian would like to see on the article. I suspect you overlooked/missed either or both of the facts that I was the one who reported the edit war and that I indicated I would not be editing the article further. Please be more careful in the future in applying blocks in such cases. You've now placed a permanent bad mark on my 'record' here and it is not appreciated, most especially when I came looking for help, not a smack in the face. If you wish to correct that, blocking me and unblocking me noting the error would be appreciated.

Also, I would like you to please unblock User:2008Olympian. Some education for him in regards to fair use image use is appropriate, along with a stern warning not to continue to edit war. He had not continued to edit war past the 3RR warning that I placed on his page. Had he done so, then perhaps a block would be appropriate but it is not appropriate here, at least not yet. Please reconsider.

Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather puzzled by PK's decision to unblock you, for some odd reason he has overlooked the common politeness of asking me first. Doubtless it was some sort of emergency. As to your suggestions: no: it would be absurd for people reporting 3RR to be immune to blocks William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused any trouble. I created every single NFL Expansion Draft article and just wanted them to look good. Since every deals with one or two teams exclusively, I thought that they could have logos on them similar to the team pages. I wasn't trying to edit war in either case, I just wanted to debate the images without them getting deleted. But this just hasn't been worth the grief. I'm just going to read Wiki from now on.--2008Olympian 09:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Its up to you. Stick to 1RR and you won't hear from me William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clarify things. I fail to see how it is appropriate to block someone who already indicated they would not be editing the article anymore, and who was asking for help (help which still hasn't been provided by anyone, I might add). Blocks are not to be used punitively or for "cool down" periods. You of course are welcome to delete this comment left on your talk page as well, but I raise it because it's still not addressed except to say that people in edit wars can be blocked. I know they can be blocked. That's one of the reasons I ended it, in addition to it obviously becoming counter productive.

Yesterday, I'd made a decision to avoid WP:AN/EW. I've changed my stance. I will be investigating the behavior of administrators on that noticeboard for other obvious inappropriate blocks. Someone asking for help who has already indicated their self removal from an edit war shouldn't be blocked. If this is normal behavior on that noticeboard, the behavior must change. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to join the queue. More seriously, don't snarl yourself up in this pointlessly William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel like there's a motivation not to get concerned about it. I now have a mark on my record for a block I feel was inappropriate, and now is listed as being an edit war that I agreed to not do anymore. Down the road, people will look at that and think I'm prone to edit warring. Far from it; I tried to STOP it. But, now that the mark is there, that's what people will see. I'd far prefer having a 1 second block/unblock done noting that the block was inappropriate or in error. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As I go through this life, I have discovered that there are occaisions on which people disagree. This seems to be one of them. I've failed to persuade you of my point of view; you've failed to persuade me of yours William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll seek relief elsewhere. Blocking someone for seeking help is out of line. It's as if there were police officers at a rehab clinic arresting people as they come in to get over their drug addiction. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

86.158.176.160

Dear William M. Connolley, IP 86.158.176.160 is disrupting List of military disasters. I've reverted his edits 3 times. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)