Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 11:28, 5 January 2010 (→Article probation at []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Scibaby

FYI an incomplete listing of his accounts is given at this link. Don't forget to click at the bottom where it says "Next 200"... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, that guy surely has to much time on his hands lmao --mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't give that list too much credit - look at the people who started pushing that. A lot of false positives happen in these things and I was once accused of being part of some sock network because my ISP is one of the biggest in the country, I shared ISP with another accused person, and I was able to look/quote rules quickly - competence is apparently damning evidence, but the real problem, with the global warming articles, is the obvious and unchallenged meatpuppetry that's been going on there for years.

The fact of the matter is that it is quite convenient to create "boogeymen" and much easier to push an agenda when opposing accounts are banned/silenced. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly

It is unlikely they will ever let any significant criticism in. I noticed they've moved all the criticism to a separate article and this is a common tactic, and not just with global warming, to relegate certain facts to articles that are less likely to be read. I wrote it up to put in the IPCC, they said go to the AR4 article, but they've made it so that all criticism can't be in that article.

The fact of the matter is that some people are organized behind the scenes, against wiki rules, which allows them to out-revert anyone, but if you dare to say it out loud they'll delete any reference to it, act all offended and try and get you banned. The global warming articles won't be fixed until we have another 5-20 years of cooling - some people have wasted too much of their lives (check their user histories) perpetuating a myth to ever admit that they were wrong.

I wrote up the section to see if anything has changed around here and proved that it has not - some facts are simply not welcome. I'd say the best thing you can do is to not waste too much time on them and just tell people about your experiences here and to take articles from wikipedia with a huge grain of salt. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Hi, I noticed that you're edit warring on this while accusing others of doing the same. Would you like to try a different method? Please let us continue the discussion at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I'll try to get the other editors to stop, too, but I'm contacting you first because apart from Thegoodlocust who was blocked and Stephan Schultz who seems to have stopped you are the editor who has been most aggressive over the past 24 hours. An RFC is ongoing and an administrator is watching this article carefully, so it isn't in our interests to misbehave. --TS 21:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You got it, i have noticed wmc has broken the 3rr rule though, what should be done about this?

And to be honest i`m not wanting to edit war, but if the other guys actually were constructive and helped to edit the article so they don`t find the addition so offensive i would not mind so much.

The rules even say you should not revert without taking it to talk but the other guys just won`t do that :( --mark nutley (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC (please don't call him "will") did not break 3RR as far as I can see. I would block him if he did. --BozMo talk 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't now as the page is protected so rules say no block. But the 4RRs were not in the same 24 hours. Edit warring though is another matter. --BozMo talk 23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya sorry i looked again, mu bad :) i`m still not 100% on how everything works --mark nutley (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. When I am around I would be happy to explain stuff although on 3RR and blocks but I am not at the "expert" end of things and only block very clear cases (sometimes what exactly counts as a revert is technical). WMC is an expert and used to do a high proportion of all the 3RR blocks when he was an admin, so you could also ask him if something was a 3RR. If someone does a 3RR normal protocol is to tell the person first in case thy made a mistake and want to revert it. Despite some people's view of WMC he is pretty helpful at explaining that kind of thing. On GW etc a lot of the problem is people not realising how crumby their local media coverage is and seeing bias when articles appear to stick to the letter and spirit of the rules. Similar problems exist elsewhere on WP (how nasty are big corporates for example)--BozMo talk 08:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way am enjoying reading your current exchange on IPCC, keep going. --BozMo talk 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i am trying to put across just how much impact this mistake has had, but i doubt those against it`s inclusion will be swayed by it :) mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well so far I think you are ahead on points. For the moment though I am happy to watch. It is quite nice seeing people who are often right squirm :-). --BozMo talk 14:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, but it won`t change a thing they`ll just keep saying it`s wp:weight and noting will be decided :) --mark nutley (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We aren't done yet. --BozMo talk 20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol, see going in circles again :) It would be nice if one argument finished before another flared up. --mark nutley (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile on the other circle you could answer my question on AR4 which was addressed at you. :-) --BozMo talk 23:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thought i had @ 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC) :) mark nutley (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

I created User:Thegoodlocust/InnocentUntilProvenGuilty as a centralized place to record falsly accused/blocked "sockpuppets" of Scibaby. Feel free to add yourself (details are good!). I'll try to work on it slowly since there is so much material there. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Goright has one like this already, survivors of scibaby i think it`s called :)

I had created a category but that turned out to be controversial so I agreed to delete it. We can do a better version as an actual page. Since TGL has created one I won't duplicate it at this point. --GoRight (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Had not realized yours was gone goright, i`ll add myself in then --mark nutley (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Would either of you like to help out on this article i am working when you have a moment feel free to do so btw ]]

Hey

The editor has been quite disruptive, and has only recently finished being blocked for 24 hours. They have so far made a number of quite bizarre comments on their user talk page, and have made been disruptive to the BBC article, as well as a number of others. He/She has made repeated accusations against me, and is constantly asking me to assume good faith even when I am asking relevant questions about changes they have proposed. They have made a number of complaints about me on WP:AN/I, however these were shut down in fairly short order.

However, as you have requested, I shall refrain from any more responses on Talk:Václav Klaus, though I believe that Nothughthomas is currently on a wikibreak at the moment. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They have made a number of complaints about me on WP:AN/I - No, I made one complaint. This is detailed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=31 - and my talk page.

and have made been disruptive to the BBC article - No, I made an edit to the BBC entry that was supported by three citations and involved the addition of the hyphenated descriptor phrase "state-supported." A community consensus decided to revert that edit. That happens in wikipedia. No big deal for me. I disagreed but I agreed to abide by community consensus.

as well as a number of others - No, I have not been disruptive to entries. Please note my contributions by reviewing the history section of Lord Monckton, Vaclav Klaus and other entries. As much as possible I have provided edit summaries for each of these in the edit history. Discussions and edits to one entry got heated and I said something I shouldn't have. That was the impetus of my, justified, 24-hour ban. That doesn't make me deserving of a lynching by one user after my ban is up.

These claims are among many this user has made about me. During my block I posted two unblock requests on my Talk. He went to noticeboards and said I had posted six and should be sanctioned. There is a pattern with this user of making claims about me specifically to mods, other users and anyone who will listen that are not supported by logs. There is something fishy here but I don't have good enough health to follow-up on this. I don't like to be chased off but my health is the important thing for me.

Nothughthomas (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, i believe it will give User:Nothughthomas some time to cool off. --mark nutley (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC

Unlike WMC who tried to cut middle ground that was a straight revert without trying to improve the text. As such in my view it qualifies for a block under the probation terms, which as you know what you are doing would be at least 48 hours. I guess it is likely that you will get reported for it. I am not going to block you but I am going to bed. I suggest you consider self reverting and trying to do an edit which again finds middle grounds not straight reverting. --BozMo talk 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, sorry i got angry.

I know it's hard to keep a cool head during a dispute. I really appreciate your self-revert and I hope we can work together to reach a revision we can all accept. --TS 00:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised at you, BozMo, his edit did NOT violate the very terms that you yourself indicated were in play. His edit did NOT violate WP:1RR so why are you indicating that his edit qualified as a block under the probation? I think MN is good to be cautious until we get such things worked out, but I want to understand the specifics of your reasoning. Can you support your position based on the text of the probation sanctions or WP:1RR? --GoRight (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He did not break Ryan's 1RR, obviously but I was concerned about this prohibition . I thought Mark's edit, which was an exact revert of someone else's edit, would count as edit warring until Puritanical rules. I think this prohibition is probably why no one has reverted your latest edits GoRight. The talk page is a horrid mess with lots of people talking cross purpose but I think we have to work with it. --BozMo talk 08:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful when editing this article. You are discussing productively and make some good points at the talkpage (although I agree that the edit below is a bit beyond the pale), but you might be in danger of slipping into edit war territory. Please just wait for an identifiable consensus at the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You say i have been discussing productively and yes i feel i have, however go take another look, once it appears i am making headway the other guys just stop discussing and go ahead and make the changes they want. If they will not reply to my arguments then what am i to do? It is very frustrating when my points are just brushed aside and the same crap continues. I ask again, what am i meant to do? Also as i asked WMC what is wrong with what i wrote? Given it`s true :)

Also WMC does not wait for consensus, he just does what he wants. mark nutley (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Final warning

You need to refactor this William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Might i ask why? and why final warning? were`s the first or second? --mark nutley (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Garbage

Can you correct the first diff on the complaint please - its garbage William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Done i have no idea how that happened --mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

coaching :)

Am too tied up to look really carefully but if I were you I would have just gone for the admin who prohibited edit warring, and been a lot clearer in the logic and not got the diffs wrong. In my personal opinion GoRight and ZP5 have clearly irritated many people with badly formed and incoherent complaints which lacked substance. Thegoodlocust is also his own worst enemy with stuff like . So you need to get complaits really crisp and sharp. Plenty of admins do not admire WMC either (even if I do a little) and would have acted immediately if offered his head on a plate. Your complaint had some real substance (viz: this article has a strict measure on edit warring applied and what is edit warring if straight reverting other people's changes as "non-consensus" and then making a bunch of non consensus changes of your own is not?). But you aren't going to get many chances at rewriting it and if you don't express it succinctly and you get the diffs wrong it only undermines your credibility for next time. --BozMo talk 22:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I thing hippocrates (i think thats the guy) fixed the diffs as he said they were broken and when he did he chopped off a bit so the second one led to a bunch of garbage :( But like i said i can`t really be bothered, whats the point when they quite simply won`t discuss and twist the rules to suit their ends?

I will continue to edit other articles which interest me but i am giving the global warming ones a miss for a while. Thanks --mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably wise. I haven't edited any of them for a while. --BozMo talk 23:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --TS 11:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)