If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able. |
A note on email: Wikipedia-related discussion should be carried on here, in view of the Wikipedia community. Following the principles stated in this arbcom decision, I will not conduct Wikipedia business by private email. My email is enabled and you're welcome to initiate contact that way; however, I won't respond by email to your inquiry and will instead reply on-wiki.
Sorry I wasn't here to take your call. You can leave a message after the tone.
Tone
You claimed that my edit did not cite any sources and was my personnel opinion. Then you used this claim to delete my edit. However, a simple study on all articles in this web site shows that more than 70% of paragraphs do NOT cite any sources. Why do you still keep them in this web site? Anyway, now we understand what the American censorship is. It is probably better than a communist one, but not much better.
Passive Smoking Talk Page
Thanks. I've read the guidelines and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.Thedukeofno 03:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL! -- But|seriously|folks 18:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
An extra set of eyes . . .
Hi Raymond, I was wondering if you could take a look at this account. Looking at the contribs (in my view at least) it has 'sleeper-sock' written all over it:
Ramsmenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Summary:
- Account created on October 25, 2006 link.
- Account is dormant for about 11 months.
- 3rd edit about a year after account creation. In Sept. 2007- added this POV text to Intelligent Design
- 28 September 2007 -one small edit to Shanthakumaran Sreesanth diff
- Then back to ID with 3 POV edits (diff).
I'm unsure as to what can/should be done at this point, but if you're willing to keep an eye on the situation, it's appreciated. Thanks, R. Baley 01:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks R. Almost certainly a sleeper sock; the only question is whose. Any hints you can provide would be helpful in focusing my sooper-sekret cabalistic rouge admin powers. Cheers - Raymond Arritt 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Appreciate it. No clues yet. . . R. Baley 01:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Editor ignoring warning you gave
User:Timeshift9 is still persisting with his "real world outing" crusade here despite your very explicit warning. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- In this case "vested interest" is so vague that I can't see how it's outing in any meaningful sense. It could simply mean that you're someone with the same political leanings. Thanks for the note; if there's anything else that concerns you, don't hesitate to let me know. I'll take a quick look through Timeshift9's recent contribs. Raymond Arritt 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- It sad that Prester John wants someone else blocked for ignoring an administrator warning. Unfortunately, Prester John himself ignores administrator warnings, and is currently engaged in an edit war after being warned previously. Details on the ANi report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Wars_continue--Lester 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read what your answering before telling people they're wrong
- You've got the burden of proof backwards. Copyright violation is a serious matter; if the material was copied from elsewhere with no indication of permission it would be irresponsible for an admin to leave it in place because the creator "may" be the copyright owner, or "may" have forgotten to post copyright info, etc. The creator can follow up with the deleting admin in such cases. I've been glad to work with people when they've done that. Raymond Arritt 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please learn to read. I DID NOT SAY they should not delete it. I said they should not use the word "unquestionably". That is irresponsible. Michael Hardy 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman
Ready to swab the deck! | ||
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - Jehochman Talk 21:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks very much
Thanks, I appreciate the support! Johntex\talk 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to deal with my concerns over some of the wording... still a little way to go, but you've managed to do some good balancing. There are quite a few in industry who nowadays actually view taking a positive stance towards climate change as being strongly aligned to their interest, either as a good corporate citizen or as something that adds a direct contribution to their bottom line! (Of course, some companies blatantly "didn't get it" or have missed the boat, and still fight a rearguard action.) This complicates the "traditional" eco-warrior stance, as their preconceptions don't always hold true 8-) Ephebi 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet indef-block
I noticed you suggested here on AN/I to indef-block a repeat vandal who has used a sockpuppet. Since you're an admin, could you execute the block? It looks to me like the right thing to do. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I assumed the other admin would take care of it, but apparently not. Raymond Arritt 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
User:ScienceApologist
Hello Raymond arrit, thanks for your message on my talk page. The line of mine to User:ScienceApologist that you complained about was intended to be somewhat humerous, hence its deliberately over-the-top language and borrowing of dialogue from Fawlty Towers. However the underlying issue is serious enough, and one i feel ought to be investigated. I will endeavour to do so without letting my sense of humour offend anyone. Be seeing you.--feline1 18:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
AN/I
Raymond - I wanted to make sure that I didn't offend you somehow in our discussion about the Hitler trolling thing on AN/I. I certainly see where you're coming from, and I don't want anyone to have carte-blanche to do whatever they'd like with their userpages. I just don't want to see a potential editor get smacked with the hammer just because he made a stupid mistake - that's all. Kind regards -- Folic_Acid | talk 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. We disagree; in my field we often have loud arguments and then go out for dinner and a beer. Carry on! Raymond Arritt 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Outstanding! Here's one for you then. -- Folic_Acid | talk 17:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok - it's time for me to eat my humble pie. Looks like you were right all along - the guy was a troll. Thanks for sending him on his way. I suppose you can have that second (or is it seventh?) glass of beer now. Cheers -- Folic_Acid | talk 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
and, thanks again
Amazing what can happen when a person goes off to have some lunch. And thanks for blocking the jerk - I was about to ask if someone would, when I saw you had already done so. The interesting thing is I don't know who this guy is - never reverted anything he did under this user name and the only other contact I've had with him, as far as I know, is the last time he cursed me out. Who knows. Tvoz |talk 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- ooh - I didn't post the beer, but I second the motion! Tvoz |talk 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Further on the point: I did make the edit he complains about, back in April, but the one I reversed had been posted by a different username, and that user has not been back on the page (nor has this one ever been there). If that is the same person as this, perhaps he should be watched - seems like a long time to hold a grudge like that, and move it to a different username and bring it up out of the blue. There have been no subsequent discussions of my reinstatement of that section as far as I recall, and no one else has removed the section that I reinstated. The whole thing is weird. Tvoz |talk 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your friend is resting peacefully in Indef-Land. Have another beer. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- An excellent idea. Tvoz |talk 00:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's free beer here? Since when? And why wasn't I told? Completely unfair. I'm requesting a full community ban on you two for...er....public drinking. Yeah, that's it. But if you share with me, I'll be too drunk to write out the AN/I, etc.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't blame me -- it was Folic_Acid | talk what brought it. Besides there's (hic) none left. But if you run down to the 7-11 and pick up some more nobody will complain. Raymond Arritt 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is uncivil of you to ask me to go to a 7-11, while the beer Tvoz and you were sharing appears to be good imported stuff. I'm definitely filing a complaint...possibly an arbitration request. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't blame me -- it was Folic_Acid | talk what brought it. Besides there's (hic) none left. But if you run down to the 7-11 and pick up some more nobody will complain. Raymond Arritt 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's free beer here? Since when? And why wasn't I told? Completely unfair. I'm requesting a full community ban on you two for...er....public drinking. Yeah, that's it. But if you share with me, I'll be too drunk to write out the AN/I, etc.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- An excellent idea. Tvoz |talk 00:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your friend is resting peacefully in Indef-Land. Have another beer. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Further on the point: I did make the edit he complains about, back in April, but the one I reversed had been posted by a different username, and that user has not been back on the page (nor has this one ever been there). If that is the same person as this, perhaps he should be watched - seems like a long time to hold a grudge like that, and move it to a different username and bring it up out of the blue. There have been no subsequent discussions of my reinstatement of that section as far as I recall, and no one else has removed the section that I reinstated. The whole thing is weird. Tvoz |talk 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I mean, seriously, Raymond, the 7-11? I expected more from you. Maybe something on tap? And Orange, I'd really like not to hear the word "arbitration" while I'm savoring this beer. Tvoz |talk 03:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- He sent me to a 7-11. Exactly what am I supposed to do? That's just plain rude. Probably wants me to get a can of Miller Lite. I used to like Raymond. Not so much now. Grrrrrrrrr. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- What does Miller Lite have to do with beer? I know the production requires a liquid, a horse, and a fridge, but I always thought any liquid that does not kill the horse is ok...wasting real beer on the process seems to be such a ...erm...waste. --Stephan Schulz 08:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Raymond, thanks for the latest revert - everyone's a critic, eh? Tvoz |talk 16:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
So relentless sockpuppetry is civil and constructive?
Sorry, but your recent remark at Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus is very hard to understand. Please have a closer look at that and then this. -- Matthead discuß! O 03:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am disappointed. Me, and others, have tried to explain the sockpuppetry problem to you, yet all you did in the last days was stating that your are still watching. So I have to make myself more clear: there is a backlog at User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin for admins to deal with. Watching will not solve it.-- Matthead discuß! O 12:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- So the issue is "solved" by archiving it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive315? -- Matthead discuß! O 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job
You are indeed full of wise advice, and hoppy goodness. Friday (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Admin Raymond Arritt expressed this view clearly, and those who ignore his warning do so at their peril.
— Finell
I would really like to encourage you to review your comment at Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus#First_and_only_warning_re:_deletion_of_talk_page_comments, this time taking into consideration WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits and my comment at the WP:ANI thread. Sciurinæ 12:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Per your question here
Well, I can't answer it, because I really don't care about it one way or another. I don't want a pony ride. But, can I get the box of oreos, just because I want some? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Watts Study/physical review of ground stations/ tendentious editing
Ok, you're accusing me of tendentious editing. Is that because I'm not going along with the cycle of put in an edit, see it get reverted with little/no argument on the talk page of the respective article and no serious attempt to engage me in improving reporting on this project? That's not supposed to be the way that Wikipedia works. You're supposed to at least try to find a way to include data, if not in the form an editor would prefer in some other form even in some other place. I was unhappy Mars global warming was shoved into Climate of Mars but I've been building that article (and not just the global warming parts) in good faith after the decision was made. Constantly killing reports on this Watts project without going through the normal editorial process is not something that I think should uncritically accepted.
I've given my reasons but I don't get a lot of reasonable feedback on how to get the information out more appropriately. Instead it's just revert, revert, revert with little real engagement on the actual independent review that is built into the project. Certainly if there were peer reviewed papers examining other physical reviews of the UHCN network that contradicted Watts, they should be preferred. But there are none because the Watts project is unique. All the other analyses taking on UHI effects out there is statistical in nature. And I think that there's a legitimate case to be made for going with the best that you've got on a particular subject.
I'm aware of the possibility that I've gone overboard on this and this certainly won't be the hill upon which I die but reverting with no serious comments is no answer. TMLutas 04:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
still waiting - Oct 30
I have been awaiting your response to try to sort out this tendentious editing business. You do not seem to be willing to work with me on improving my method of raising subjects so that they are no longer tendentious. I'm not even entirely clear on what part of the WP:TE essay I've supposedly transgressed. Give a fellow a clue, would you? Accusations without follow through look an awful lot like the Wiki equivalent of a SLAPP suit except here instead of ruinous legal fees, blocked accounts are the threat. TMLutas 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- This discussion should take place on the talk page of the relevant article. I will not reply here. Raymond Arritt 03:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a fair response except I think you're not answering there either. If I'm in error, please provide a link to the appropriate section. Until I find it, I'm still waiting. TMLutas 22:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've answered you several times. Unfortunately, it's not the answer you want to hear, so you're pretending that I haven't answered you at all. Raymond Arritt 22:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Still waiting for that link... TMLutas 21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just thought you should know, WMC's casual libel of Watts clarified things for me. There is no solution to be found in any group of editors paying close attention to global warming related pages. I've given up on the edit. The only cure is fixing the rules. TMLutas 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL!
I certainly did Ray! Hope your'e well. Cheers pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Davkal etc.
Hi...Your recent comment about leaving Wikipedia to be dominated by 'paranormalists' I concur with 100%. I am of the same mind on this. But, SA's tactics are not helpful; nor is editing paranormal type articles in such a way to dominate those articles with scientific criticism. I think the best approach is to build strong and pithy criticism sections in each article to make them less POV from a paranormal standpoint - but at the same time allowing for the classic definition as given in paranormal terms to precede this criticism. I liken it to religious topics, which are addressed as such, and have a critics section (Noah's Ark or other related stuff) at the end to inform the reader of what science has to say. This avoids edit wars and uncessary controversy over these subjects - like paranormal, occult, etc. etc. I also share your concerns about Wikipedia's credibility. The concerns I have with some editors associated with the RationalSkeptics group, is they edit articles outside of the mainstream editing patterns of Wikipedia ignoring Arbcom decisions and causing conflict. This will only lead to a bad reputation for 'mainstream' type editors and for the group itself. The pattern has to change, to something like I suggest to avoid these endless edit problems with paranormal editors and to have firm ground to stand on to achieve NPOV articles. --Northmeister 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who is on record as accepting that EVP in fact exist [3] you're inevitably going to have a different perspective than mine, which is that of a physical scientist. I'm not yet prepared to toss aside everything we've learned since Copernicus. For all practical purposes we speak in two different languages. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe. Although if I were to reject the notion that this phenomena exists, I would not be a good observer of things. How can anyone dispute there are sounds there? What it is, is another can altogher, and here you as a physcial scientist might agree with me. So I don't get your point pertaining to what I addressed originally. Namely, SA and problem editing which will only serve to cause endless disputes needlessly. Seems you didn't address the concerns but rather chose to address your assumption of my assumptions, which are not correct. --Northmeister 02:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Magnetized particles exist on tape, noise exists in radio signals, and so on. Naming any of these things "EVP" requires a point of view that is irreconcilable with physical science. Raymond Arritt 02:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I understand. But, they are so named - not literally by science but by those outside of the science - thus the problem - terms or otherwise. What I hear can't be discounted - what it is (the point of contention) can be accounted for through proper scientific method. Anyway, I do appreciate your candor and responses. --Northmeister 02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think what you're missing NM, is that what you hear can be discounted. The so-called phenomena of EVP require a specific belief system (i.e. voices can be found in noise if we listen hard enough and are "open" to hearing them) in order to function. In that sense, what we are discussing in the article is an eccentric belief system based on the controlled misuse of electronics. - LuckyLouie 06:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha
So what you're saying is that all of that information is fixed and will never even be changed or even considered at all. I still don't understand why it is so hard for you to consider global warming MIGHT not be man-made. The debate is not over no matter how much you would like to think it is. Jeez, the way y'all are acting kind of reminds me of an Evangelical's complete close-mindedness and denial of the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang.--Lucky Mitch 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying to diet, so please stop putting words in my mouth. Raymond Arritt 01:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the assumptions, but judging from your message, you disapprove of the point I am trying to get across. Am I incorrect?--Lucky Mitch 01:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the points made in your original message given above then yes, you are incorrect. Raymond Arritt 01:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
So you do believe that the change in climate MIGHT not be due to human activity and that the Wikipedia articles should reflect this?--Lucky Mitch 02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe there's a possibility (a very small one) that "the change in climate MIGHT not be due to human activity." But Wikipedia articles can't reflect what you are I think "MIGHT" be the case. They have to reflect the state of the science as it presently exists, which is overwhelmingly that the change in climate is mainly due to human activity. Raymond Arritt 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I may disagree with you on your opinion on how possible it may be that climate change might not be due to human activity, I do respect your opinion and apreciate you at least acknowledging the possibility that climate change might not be due to human activity. Many people I have talked about the issue with will not even consider it. I will stop bothering you now.--Lucky Mitch 02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Template:Dominionism
Hi Raymond. The Template:Dominionism TfD, which you initiated, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:AN/I
You recently referred to me as "fantastically arrogant," implying I had required another user to get my permission before she removed a lengthy conversation from WP:AN/I. Normally I ignore personal attacks, but this was such a fantastically stupid attack that I feel I should respond. I specifically told her five lines up she didnt need my permission to do anything. Wow. Perspicacite 19:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my -- please re-read my comment. I was responding to the statement by Alice S. that you had her permission; viz., "Perspicacite [i.e. you] doesn't need your [i.e., Alice S's] permission..." I had hoped that the level of indentation made that clear. Given her defense of some borderline-racist comments that was a much milder rebuke than what I was actually thinking. Raymond Arritt 19:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. Perspicacite 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Carry on... Raymond Arritt 21:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to raise this so late, Raymond, but I've only just noticed it. I am not a racist. Neither do I generally defend or support racist comments. However, in the context of our Encyclopedia, we are not really concerned with my particular political stance (or yours, or Jose's) but with writing articles that fairly represent the state of current opinion and research on a topic.
I am not aware of defending the indefensible, so could you point me towards this mistake so that I can correct it, please?
(Was it in this version of our Rhodesia article?) Alice✉ 04:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't remember the details. It had something to do with someone else's comments, which you seemed to defend. (I don't support or oppose people based on their political stance; there are many Wikipedia editors whom I respect but whose political or other beliefs I disagree with.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Response on Gray
Raymond, I replied to your comment on Gray at William M. Connelley's talk page, but William deleted it, so I'm reposting it here:
- I didn't propose it, DHeyward did; I just support it. :-) I disagree that it's too short, especially if we include the Webster quote - which basically tells the reader that his views are not even endorsed by a longtime colleague, let alone the scientific community. But, if you have a suggestion for a compromise version, post it on the talk and see if everyone agrees. Though, I would not support anything sourced to a blog. BLP is clear on this issue, and anyway, we have more compelling criticism from a colleague so we don't need blog-sourced criticism. (Nothing against RC here, BTW. The only argument I have against RC per se is that it is unpublished and critical of Gray). ATren 13:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking User:Anittas
Thanks for blocking User:Anittas, he was taunting me in my talk page that nobody cares about his racist comments, obviously somebody cares and I'm glad. If there were only those comments I might have closed my eyes and let it pass, but he continued the pattern of racist comments in other pages. -- AdrianTM 05:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do be aware that I'll be looking at the activity of other participants in those discussions. Raymond Arritt 05:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable thing to do. Please note that people were constantly been provoked. -- AdrianTM 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not a troll
On Global Warming: F'crissake! I might not actually be a troll and may actually have a question i want answered. PLEASE understand me! If i did something wrong, or asked the question in the wrong place, then PLEASE post me a message. thank you 64.123.143.145 03:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and BTW, I realize that glaciers ARE retreating, which is explained very well here: Retreat of glaciers since 1850, and yes I realize the global surface anomaly. 64.123.143.145 03:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- No offense meant; I never said you were a troll. The "TPG" in my edit summary refers to "Talk page guidelines."[4] The talk page for that article has a strong tendency to veer off from its purpose of discussing the article and get bogged down in aimless discussions (or arguments). Thus as stated at the top of Talk:Global warming many of us are strict about removing discussion that isn't specifically focused on the article itself. If you have a specific proposal for improving the article you're welcome to join in, but please don't use the talk page as a forum for asking general questions. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks
Yeah, I know you're right, but editors leaving it stand there without comment really disappointed me when I saw it today. Thanks for the removal. He's been at it for years, apparently on other articles, and I find it hard to understand why more can't be done, even though I do get that a range block might cause collateral damage too high to be acceptable. So I guess he has successfully gamed the system, and we just have to sit back and take it - which doesn't come easily to me when I'm the subject of such an attack. But I suppose you're right anyway. Tvoz |talk 04:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yikes, we'd have to block a /17 to catch all those IPs. That would be over 32,000 addresses. Could be worth bringing it up at AN/I and proposing an effective ban on this idiot, such that any user is free to delete its contributions. Raymond Arritt 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
BLP?
Fred, how is this a BLP concern? There's no question that he served as part of Merck's team, and it's not accusing him of doing anything unethical -- it's simply a statement about his participation in a highly notable case. If I'm missing something here, please amplify. Raymond Arritt 04:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- You have the reason on your user page, the segment "bitter political infighting" David Shankbone is on the warpath against Ted Frank, who briefly edited here and was involved in an arbitration case Ted Frank brought against him. Fred Bauder 04:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Spare me the lack of good faith, Fred. Nobody is on a war path and if you are going to make such scurrilous remarks I'm going to tell you to grow up. I'm currently working on my interview with the Dalai Lama's representative, preparing an interview with a Republican Presidential candidate and Al Sharpton, that I can assure you Ted Frank is the least of my worries. Comment on the edits, Fred, not the editors--don't they teach that to arbs? If you'd like to see further "defending" language, look at Frank's own AEI bio. --David Shankbone 04:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- And let's not twist history, either. I was the one who asked JzG to bring that ArbCase - or do you forget the reason why THF stormed off the project? Because he completely disagreed with it? And virtually every finding of fact was in his disfavor. --David Shankbone 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Shankbone, drop it. Now. I came a hair's breadth from blocking both you and THF for disruption back in August, and you're now doing everything you can to snap that hair. You may well succeed. Raymond Arritt 05:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have done nothing block-able and if you'd like to point to a policy or guideline I have broken, please do so. --David Shankbone 05:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Shankbone, drop it. Now. I came a hair's breadth from blocking both you and THF for disruption back in August, and you're now doing everything you can to snap that hair. You may well succeed. Raymond Arritt 05:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- And let's not twist history, either. I was the one who asked JzG to bring that ArbCase - or do you forget the reason why THF stormed off the project? Because he completely disagreed with it? And virtually every finding of fact was in his disfavor. --David Shankbone 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Spare me the lack of good faith, Fred. Nobody is on a war path and if you are going to make such scurrilous remarks I'm going to tell you to grow up. I'm currently working on my interview with the Dalai Lama's representative, preparing an interview with a Republican Presidential candidate and Al Sharpton, that I can assure you Ted Frank is the least of my worries. Comment on the edits, Fred, not the editors--don't they teach that to arbs? If you'd like to see further "defending" language, look at Frank's own AEI bio. --David Shankbone 04:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've suggested that Shankbone treat the topic "Ted Frank" as if it were a COI and use the talk pages rather than edit the BLP information directly. At heart, these edits are a COI problem because a contributor's NPOV is easily questioned when dealing with former foes. Shankbone refuses my request, so perhaps you could help clarify the COI guideline? Cool Hand Luke 06:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is now bordering on harassment, Luke. Cease and desist. This issue has been discussed with Fred, with Raymond and with you, and you are now asking Raymond to raise it again. You are harassing me, so stop. --David Shankbone 06:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm doing no such thing. You said that I have no authority to tell you what three other admins already have and that I should have neutral admins look it over. That's what I would like to happen. I'm not asking several noticeboards to look into your behavior, just for a second opinion. You seem to intentionally annoy me, and I need a sanity check from time to time. I don't think asking you to follow COI is unreasonable, but this should be double-checked. Cool Hand Luke 07:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is now bordering on harassment, Luke. Cease and desist. This issue has been discussed with Fred, with Raymond and with you, and you are now asking Raymond to raise it again. You are harassing me, so stop. --David Shankbone 06:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've suggested that Shankbone treat the topic "Ted Frank" as if it were a COI and use the talk pages rather than edit the BLP information directly. At heart, these edits are a COI problem because a contributor's NPOV is easily questioned when dealing with former foes. Shankbone refuses my request, so perhaps you could help clarify the COI guideline? Cool Hand Luke 06:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, appart from all the
bickeringside discussion: Fred, how is the edit a WP:BLP violation? --Stephan Schulz 07:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)- Three admins and an arbitrator (Newyorkbrad, CoolHandLuke, Raymond aritt and Fred Bauder) have all politely asked David to stop editing Ted Frank related information, due the extremely contentious nature of their on-wiki interactions, which went all the way to a very hotly contested arbcom case. Ted is long gone from the project, and is not here to defend himself. If you know the details of the arb case, you will know that a reference to the Vioxx case is somewhat of a sensitive issue, because Ted was publicly harassed on that fact by a very well known documentary filmmaker. Obviously David knows this, and he still insisted on twice referencing the Vioxx case in Ted's blurb on the AEI page. There is no reason for David to be making these edits. There was nothing controversial in what David removed, definitely something controversial in what he added, and therefore I find it extremely difficult to assume good faith here. Is it really so much to ask that David refrain from editing this one person's biographical info? ATren 07:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, appart from all the
- David, I'm sorry to see you have removed the section of your talk page dealing with this issue. Irrespective of how one feels about Merck's conduct, if there is more than one factual way to refer to a person in a half-sentence capsule description, we should 1) look for a broadly applicable description rather than focusing on a single specific fact or incident (the undue weight clause), and 2) we should generally respect that person's wishes if they object to one reference over another, especially if the objected-to version is less respectful of the undue weight clause. (I would certainly afford you the same courtesy if you were the subject of an article.) As we recently discussed, brief capsule descriptions should generally be neutral and broadly applicable. For example, in the article Law & Order, which makes a passing reference to Fred Thompson, it would be appropriate to refer to him as "presedential candidate Fred Thompson" or "former Senator Fred Thompson" but not as "former pro-choice lobbyist Fred Thompson" , which is an NPOV and undue weight violation. (That complicated issue can be convered in a neutral and balanced way in Fred Thompson of course.) Here I feel from your other edits that you feel that defending Merck and other corporate clients is bad thing, which just reinforces that any capsule description of THF as "the lawyer who defended Merck" is an undue weight violation. Please stick to neutral descriptions in passing mentions and lists, and save the coverage of the issue for the main article. More broadly, I am concerned that you appear to be making THF-related edits that have more to do with picking at old scabs and less to do with an altrusitic interest in writing the world's greatest free encyclopedia. Count me as a fourth admininstrator who thinks you should avoid making further THF-related edits. Thatcher131 12:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Disengaging
David Shankbone is engaging in the same kinds of behaviors that so enraged THF, now with CHL and me. I'm disengaging. If you have any questions about my past or present conflicts with DS, feel free to ask. I've been unswervingly civil with him in all cases, even as he was harassing me by repeatedly raising unrelated age-old disputes. I have nothing to hide here. ATren 17:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's preposterous. You two are pursuing and trolling me - I haven't engaged either of you. You have no ability to think clearly on this subject, even though you removed your rant about it on your User page. --David Shankbone 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
As I've said, Raymond, if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask on my talk page or email. ATren 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should go back to pestering William M. Connolley. You have patterns of this behavior. --David Shankbone 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, if you have any questions as to my "pestering" of William M. Connolley, feel free to ask on my talk or email. ATren 18:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Howdy Raymond arritt, thanks for participating in my request for adminship and your suggestion of becoming an admin several months back. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.
--TeaDrinker 05:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Another thanks
Hi yes I was worried a little that I had broken the 3RR but I thought maybe I was ok doing so on the basis of the warnings and presuming it in the end to be vandalism as they simply refuse to discuss the edits. But no worries I will be careful as I suppose in instances where it isn't clearly vandalism maybe I should report to the Admin Noticeboard earlier, and thanks, hopefully they will listen to reason and add sourced NPOV content, though I won't hold my breath! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Dynamic annoyance
What should we do about:
70.6.68.124 70.6.123.242 68.26.244.25 70.0.85.51
RDNS says they come from HUNTINGTON BEACH. There a probably more IPs, and good reason to believe it is the same person. If this were a single user account she would have been blocked by now for disruptive edits. Yet, the dynamic IP has given her immunity? Do you know how to go about this? Brusegadi (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's clearly the same person. There's not a great barrage of edits so it's best simply to revert them as they occur. If it gets out of hand the best thing to do is semi-protect the articles. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Huntington beach is near Pasadena. Also, the dynamic annoyance seemed to have started after the block and if you look at edit summaries, Obedium and the IPs are similar. Evading a block are we? Brusegadi (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Cl Ch
My revert was bigger than your revert, na na! William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Give me a little more time, I'm working toward rm -rf / Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
When I slap down the {{The Barnstar of Good Humor}}, I try always to say at least one funny thing in the message, and since I'm too tired (read: intoxicated) to say anything at all substantive at present, I can't confer a barnstar on you; I can, though, say that this was much enjoyed. Cheers, Joe 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Have a good night, and hope the morning isn't too rough on you! (Google "tired and emotional.") Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
roha
It's a start, anyway. Apparently he has been range blocked in the past, by the way, but I do understand the problem - I just think something more should be done about it. Anyway - Cat Stevens - actually Talk: Cat Stevens - is where I've encountered his anti-Semitic remarks - is it reasonable to protect an article's talk page? He has been disruptive on Bob Dylan for years - here are two examples of discussion about it - he also was involved in a revert war sometime in the last year on Bob Dylan about the structure of the article (I don't recall it being particularly ideological, but I'd have to check). And his history on Adolf Hitler is legion - that one is already semi protected, I assume permanently so. I have seen him editing disruptively on other articles as well. I recall Prime number was one, but again, not ideological. Thanks Raymond. Tvoz |talk 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan already are semi-protected. If he pops up elsewhere let me know. As far as I'm concerned any editor has carte blanche permission to revert offensive edits or remarks from ROHA. It is very important not to respond to him in any way -- such twisted individuals thrive on attention, whether positive or negative. Should anyone object to a revert send them to me and I'll take the heat. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Subpage
Heya,
Your subpage User:Raymond arritt/Editwar draft is tagged as "official policy". Do you want to fix this so it won't show up in that category? I think it must be historical oversight :) and thought I'd mention :)
Best, FT2 (Talk | email) 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh good grief. Thanks for catching that! (It's a slowly-developing draft that will respond to some suggestions for merging 3RR into the larger context of edit warring.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No worries
You have taken bait far less than I. There are megabytes worth of examples where I inappropriately have responded to baiting. Fortunately, the user in question is now blocked and we can continue to work on writing an encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"Civility-above-all-else crowd"
Hi, Raymond. I thought your comments at JzG's talk page were quite perceptive. There is an increasingly vocal group of people who think that civility and refraining from personal attacks are The Most Important Thing In The World™, even more than creating an encyclopedia. I certainly agree that some types of behaviour, even if the person is contributing productively to the encyclopedia, such as massive POV-pushing or edit warring, are disruptive to the point that the person should be blocked. But I do not characterise civility or personal attacks as disruptive in this manner.
What are your thoughts? How can this be changed? Can this be changed? --Iamunknown 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good manners are important. :) Abtract (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem, of course, is when civility and personal attacks hinder any productive attempt at creating an encyclopedia, and instead creates something exactly counter to that, which happens at all too often when people choose to ignore the two policies. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am not of the opinion that civility is a trump card. Given a choice between a civil, unfailingly courteous Holocaust denier and an editor with some rough edges who has a commitment to accuracy, I'll choose the latter. If that makes me a bad person, well, I can live with it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem, of course, is when civility and personal attacks hinder any productive attempt at creating an encyclopedia, and instead creates something exactly counter to that, which happens at all too often when people choose to ignore the two policies. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- People who demand that "so-and-so needs to be blocked because he's uncivil" are missing the point. In a collaborative project, incivility results in a loss of credibility and makes people less willing to collaborate with you. That's the punishment for it. Even if you look at editors who are highly productive but "rough around the edges", there's no doubt in my mind that they'd be even more effective if they were unfailingly civil. Yes, we should expect a high level of civility from everyone, but it's pointless to demand a block for incivility or put people on "civility parole". In a project like this, incivility is its own punishment. MastCell Talk 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- This comment[5] gives an interesting perspective. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- People who demand that "so-and-so needs to be blocked because he's uncivil" are missing the point. In a collaborative project, incivility results in a loss of credibility and makes people less willing to collaborate with you. That's the punishment for it. Even if you look at editors who are highly productive but "rough around the edges", there's no doubt in my mind that they'd be even more effective if they were unfailingly civil. Yes, we should expect a high level of civility from everyone, but it's pointless to demand a block for incivility or put people on "civility parole". In a project like this, incivility is its own punishment. MastCell Talk 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- First, incivility and personal attacks do not generally create a battleground - I personally try to collaborate with someone even if they insult me or be incivil. I agree that good manners are important. I disagree, however, that someone with poor manners should be blocked (except in egregious situations). (Besides, blocking someone who is incivil or insulting will generally foster more incivility and insults.)
- I, too, would echo what Raymond said, and add that if I had the choice between collaborating with an unfailingly civil person who had little to contribute to the encyclopedia and lots of drama to promote and an excellent content contributor with rough edges, I would choose the latter. --Iamunknown 05:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
GW protection
Seems you did the opposite and unprotected for some reason. I've semi-protected it for a month. Vsmith (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Gag, what an idiot. It's a wonder I didn't crash the servers. Thanks for fixing it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Velikovsky Article
Ray,
You're being used by a couple of super losers (Ellenberger and Thompson) who no reasonable person ought ever to get used by. Send me an email I can reply to at bigbear@bearfabrique.org. I use Wikipedia myself for things like "how does a sewing machine work" or "how does a diesel locomotive work" for which no controversy could exist, but this policy of treating every science controversy as if there were only one side to it and enforcing rules selectively is sooner or later going to start to have consequences to the owner(s) of Wikipedia, and the pain WILL filter downwards, and you probably won't want to participate in any of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icebear1946 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Threats really don't help your case. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Then again, I could be wrong, some people actually enjoy being used....
Icebear1946 (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to see you off Raymond - look forward to seeing you back. If it helps a little, Ib is now indef banned William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)
Your arbitration proposal
Of course people should only accuse administrators of misconduct if they have reasonable evidence. I think what people were questioning was primarily whether that principle should be included in the decision in this case. I hope that you will be back with us soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
IRC
I saw this edit, please don't leave, and lets discuss in IRC. Thanks This is a Secret account 00:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I should clarify that the business with Durova isn't my main reason for taking some time off; it's only one in a string of events that have convinced me that Wikipedia has jumped the shark. I don't think #wikipedia-en-admins would be a good place to discuss the issues -- a venue where sentiments such as recommending that Durova "could become a suicide bomber" are freely expressed isn't useful for serious discussions. You're free to email, of course. At the moment I don't plan to leave Wikipedia permanently but just need some time off for reflection. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Raymond, you're one of the good guys. More and more are leaving, and that means articles like The Holocaust, An Inconvenient Truth, Alternative medicine, and who knows what else become the propaganda piece for those who do not respect scholarship and science. Sad. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above - please reconsider your decision. You're one of the best people we have. Raul654 (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. I'm just taking a break, and probably will continue to be active at a low level in the meantime. But this project needs to lose the idea that we must bend over backward to accommodate disruptive users because hey, they made three constructive edits a year and a half ago. Disruptive users themselves aren't the problem -- such things are unavoidable in any large project. The greater concern is that established members of the community nurture, protect and enable them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Moving on
Oh, you're right. I have struck. Marskell (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I note above that you are fed up with Wiki at the moment and I hope my silly rhetoric didn't contribute. I would say that people are disturbed as a valid matter of principle. Guy observes that "Enabling banned users to evade their bans and continue to abuse Wikipedia for their own ends fosters a culture of paranoia and is divisive." Others have pointed out that sleuthing fosters a culture of paranoia and is divisive. In this case, I lean toward the latter camp and think clarification from Arb is in order. Reasonable people can disagree about how best to strike a balance but I think we would all agree that a balance needs to be struck. I have responded to your last question on the workshop, which I hope explains my position better. Marskell (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "silly rhetoric" from all concerned definitely was a part if the issue; the biggest issue of all was that I found myself being sucked into it, so I made a decision to disengage for a while.
- Among the many problems facing Wikipedia, one of the most serious is that as another user put it to me in an email, "the lunatics are definitely running the asylum." As just one example, I'm thinking of a couple of users that I encountered recently. Their block logs are so long that they're hard to count but as best I can tell one of them has been blocked 10 times and the other has been blocked 16 times. In any sane community they would be quickly and quietly ushered to the exit. But not in Wikipedia. Instead they are being offered mentorship, given still more chances to reform, encouraged in bringing charges against other editors(!!!), and in general lavished with the attention that such persons crave. Of course, I dare not mention their names lest I be pilloried for making a personal attack and failing to assume good faith on the part of these stellar contributors.
- Tom Harrison described the situation brilliantly:
- "We seem to have built a system that accommodates people whose net contribution is negative, while alienating some of our best volunteers."
- "It happens more and more that some loudmouth jackass causes enough trouble that it seems easier to accommodate him. This is short-sighted, and is why the fraction of jerks here is growing. What should we do instead? Keep people who help the project, lose people who do not, and protect each other from harassment. We could do that if we only had to deal with opposition by trolls and vandals. We cannot do it against the opposition of established members of the community."
- The italics in the last sentence are my addition. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- The drama level here lately has been ruining the website...best that excellent contributors such as you restore your sanity by doing what you can to not let it consume you. As far as it goes for me...I usually retreat back to my land management articles to regroup...hopefully...I will also be able to refocus my attentions in that direction soon, and if I can, I hope I don't ever have to leave them again. I have a lot of unfinished article work yet to do...and so do you!--MONGO (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't even agree that the drama level has risen - it's just that the absolute amount of drama has grown with Wikipedia. But there are very large large areas entirely untouched by it. If I want to do some real work in a not-tooth-and-claw environment, I write something about maritime history. Or I go to the German Perrypedia for a complete change of environment... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's debatable. The ratio seems to increase, as goodwill editors leave the project and more nasty people join. Of course, the opposite is true for Citizendium, but then the goodwill people don't seem to flock there. I agree though, it's possible to solace in different places within this encyclopedia. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Raymond- yes, yes, yes! I don't know which incident prompted you to post this, but it is so true! Tom is exactly right as are you. I've been seeing this for a while now - we bend over backwards to accommodate the disrupters - they get their way by bullying and obnoxious behavior - and unless we have really strong feelings about a subject we just walk away, because it isn't worth it. The net result? Too many jerks, everywhere you look, and a weakened encyclopedia. It reminds me of parents who are afraid to say no to their kids, lest they won't be their friends. Well, be a parent and let the rest of it sort itself out. Similar situation here. Adolescents on the loose - of all ages. I mostly alternate between pop culture articles and political candidates - and some other areas as the mood strikes me - when one gets too hot (and you know exactly how hot the Beatles articles get!) I go to the other, and then return when I can't take it there any more. And meanwhile I revert vandals and opt more for the warnings that are actually warnings, rather than using the "thank you for shitting on the article, let's all play nicely now" ones. Now perhaps you see why I have resisted the kind offers of RfA sponsorship that have come my way. I worry that lunacy may be contagious. Tvoz |talk 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's debatable. The ratio seems to increase, as goodwill editors leave the project and more nasty people join. Of course, the opposite is true for Citizendium, but then the goodwill people don't seem to flock there. I agree though, it's possible to solace in different places within this encyclopedia. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't even agree that the drama level has risen - it's just that the absolute amount of drama has grown with Wikipedia. But there are very large large areas entirely untouched by it. If I want to do some real work in a not-tooth-and-claw environment, I write something about maritime history. Or I go to the German Perrypedia for a complete change of environment... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- The drama level here lately has been ruining the website...best that excellent contributors such as you restore your sanity by doing what you can to not let it consume you. As far as it goes for me...I usually retreat back to my land management articles to regroup...hopefully...I will also be able to refocus my attentions in that direction soon, and if I can, I hope I don't ever have to leave them again. I have a lot of unfinished article work yet to do...and so do you!--MONGO (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am not the nicest person on Wikipedia, I don't pretend to be, and I don't think I can be. As I have grown more and more frustrated with what I see as manipulation of rules, Administrators who seem more concerned about keeping everyone happy, and POV-warriors everywhere, I've gotten hotter and hotter. articles are being shit upon daily. Raymond, if you depart, the shitting will get smellier and smellier. Tvoz, you are a good person, keep fighting the good fight. But I'm getting tired. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Again, there is a flip-side to the point about nasty people coming in: good people walking away because of stupid decisions like this block. We guard the battlements against the trolls, fine; but if we are so aggressive in doing so that we alienate content contributors, the cure will be worse than the disease. I think I know the main account of !! (that's not an invitation to gossip—just a personal hunch) and if we've lost that person for good, it's a very grievous blow to the encyclopedia. Marskell (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and I disagree that the drama level has risen. Remember the Great Userbox War? The various Kelly Martin fiascos? Brandt, Essjay, and what's-his-name that kicked off BLP? There's always been drama. I don't think it worse than usual. Marskell (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this is where we have to agree to disagree. I don't think we're so desperate for content that we need to support people whose net effect is strongly negative. The continual nurturing and protecting of such folks seems like a deliberate slap in the face to constructive editors who have to deal with them day in and day out. While I don't agree with the view that it's better to keep 1000 aggressive borderline-racist POV pushers than to take a chance on mistakenly blocking one good contributor for 75 minutes, I can respect that you hold such a view in good faith. Maybe I'm just out of sync with the community here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- As a Star Trek nut, I love one of Spock's words of wisdom (probably stolen from someone less famous than Spock)--"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." Yeah, I say block the POV-pushers. If occasionally an innocent bystander gets taken, we can try to deal with it. Usually, we know who is and who is not. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. That sounds a little too much like a "block 'em all and let God sort it out" approach. (Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you.) The problem I have is with people who are plainly and deliberately disruptive, persisting in the same behavior even after all attempt to reason with them. For example, using sockpuppetry to evade blocks most often results only in resetting the clock, even though it's a calculated act that shows plain contempt for the norms of the project. For goodness sake, we have people here who have been blocked more than 15 times! At some point we need to realize that such a person isn't able to play well with others, and invite them to apply their talents elsewhere. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think you missed the point of my quote. What I would like to see is that we firmly and aggressively prevent disruptive POV-warriors from continuing their ways. Here's what I see: first block, whine to supportive and ostensibly neutral admins, get unblocked, proceed to do the same bullshit, get reblocked, then unblocked by a sympathetic admin (who usually agrees with the POV warrior), gets reblocked, then an RfC, then a community ban, then an ArbCom, then it gets overturned, then the POV-warrior is allowed back in, proceeds to repeat same bullshit, finally gets permanently banned, creates a sock, rinse, repeat. My way, make the block an easy one at first, permanent the second time. And every once in a while someone like me is going to get their ass banned from the project. I can live with that, if the POV idiots are permanently blocked. See User:Ferrylodge as an example. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. That sounds a little too much like a "block 'em all and let God sort it out" approach. (Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you.) The problem I have is with people who are plainly and deliberately disruptive, persisting in the same behavior even after all attempt to reason with them. For example, using sockpuppetry to evade blocks most often results only in resetting the clock, even though it's a calculated act that shows plain contempt for the norms of the project. For goodness sake, we have people here who have been blocked more than 15 times! At some point we need to realize that such a person isn't able to play well with others, and invite them to apply their talents elsewhere. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- As a Star Trek nut, I love one of Spock's words of wisdom (probably stolen from someone less famous than Spock)--"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." Yeah, I say block the POV-pushers. If occasionally an innocent bystander gets taken, we can try to deal with it. Usually, we know who is and who is not. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this is where we have to agree to disagree. I don't think we're so desperate for content that we need to support people whose net effect is strongly negative. The continual nurturing and protecting of such folks seems like a deliberate slap in the face to constructive editors who have to deal with them day in and day out. While I don't agree with the view that it's better to keep 1000 aggressive borderline-racist POV pushers than to take a chance on mistakenly blocking one good contributor for 75 minutes, I can respect that you hold such a view in good faith. Maybe I'm just out of sync with the community here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and I disagree that the drama level has risen. Remember the Great Userbox War? The various Kelly Martin fiascos? Brandt, Essjay, and what's-his-name that kicked off BLP? There's always been drama. I don't think it worse than usual. Marskell (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
One of the attributes I admire most from our experts is their patience. I dont have an advanced degree and sometimes I get irritated by someone who read some bull in joesblog.geocities.com and starts an endless revert war to substitute the bull for science quoted material. I think the project is big enough so that we can begin getting a little 'harsher' if you will. I saw us lose a neuroscientist over some POV pusher in the Shiavo page. Worst of all, our POV pusher later got banned. The neuro guy never came back, but the POV pusher probably roams with some new id. Our rules are very lax. In the real world, they give you benefit of the doubt because its hard to prove something beyond 'reasonable doubt.' Disruption in wikipedia tends to be recorded in the history (unless its legal emails) so I dont see why it would be difficult to get more serious. Brusegadi (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're probably speaking of User:Amorrow, though he edited there under a different account—quite possibly, when his off-site activities are included, the most destructive user the project has had.
- I think we're discussing two different things here. I have no problem banning a user like Amorrow for all eternity and agree that when you have a block log as long as your arm you should be shown the door. None of this applies in the case of !!. No block history, no evidence of disruption. And "it was just 75 minutes" is not the point. It's the atmosphere of secrecy, the complete lack of a coherent methodology, and the off-site discussion to make a serious on-site decision that's the point. As I said in first, it's a matter of striking the right balance; hopefully the arb case will help do so. Marskell 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles
Your user name is on the “Inactive, or have just popped out for a cup of tea...” list on the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles page. You can move it back to the “Participants” list if you feel this is not the case. :) -- WikiProject The Beatles 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
sorry
you're exactly right. I was distracted by a two year old on my lap and not thinking straight. I did manage to self correct before you pointed it out though. --BozMo talk 17:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
AIT RfC
I only listed it in politics because (1) I, personally, am primarily raising the point from a political perspective, and (2) it was unclear to me that it would be appropriate to list it on more than one place. As you are aware this is the first time I have done such a thing.
I believe that bringing in the science community will, as I suspect you also are aware, confuse things in regards to the political points I am making and simply overwhelm the discussion thereof with more claims of scientific consensus which I am not disputing. Be that as it may we may get more reaction from the science community so that at least would be a good thing in terms of garnering uninvolved comments.
I will likewise add the Science and Math to the TGGWS RfC I just opened. --GoRight (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see you beat me to it. I was honestly going to do it. --GoRight (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, why didn't you include the science vote on the RealClimate RfC? Just curious. :) --GoRight (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Possibly reprotect Noob
The page Noob was sprotected by you a few weeks ago for IP vandalism problems. The page is currently a redirect, but soon after the sprot expired, the vandals have returned. It may need to be sprotected again. Since it is a redirect anyways, a longer-term sprot (even permanent) may be in order. Thanks for your attention to this matter. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A note
Yes. This community is very frustrating. Sometimes it feels like it is circling the drain. If it is too much, take a long break. It is not for nothing that I removed ANI and global warming from my watchlist. Wikipedia will go on without you. It will probably suck a little bit more, but really, how will anyone be able to notice a little extra crappiness. Anyway, I support you and think you do good work around here. But please, do what you've got to do to handle things and feel good about what you are doing. Dragons flight (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I note that you gave this user a 10-day block last month. I'd just like to get your opinion on whether they should be again blocked for this completely unprovoked personal attack, another personal attack, and this deliberate removal of transgender related template, stub tag and category from an article. The user doesn't yet appear to have an understanding of Wikipedia:Civility and appears to have tendencies towards an anti-LGBT crusade.
I note that the user does actually do something constructive from time to time (eg [6] Nope, I was wrong. Wikilinked wrong people --AliceJMarkham 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)), but most of their rapidly accumulated bulk of contribs is creating user talk pages for new users by substing a welcome template. --AliceJMarkham 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked by Tonywalton for one week. --AliceJMarkham 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Your vote
Hey, thanks for your vote. I think you temporarily pushed me over 50%! :) MastCell Talk 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Heh. I think you'll be successful in a later candidacy. The most important qualification for an arb is to Keep Your Nose Clean At All Times, and engage in "controversial" matters only when you're sure following the crowd. (BTW your opposes from profg and Martinphi show that you're on the right track.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Highland Cattle
I assume you know that given time the above highland bull will start winning the google images search for "Raymond Arritt"? --BozMo talk 14:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it looks better than my actual photo... Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hang in there
Sometimes, we have to deal with some really messed up situations and editors. You're one of our best, so hang in there.--MONGO (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- As mentioned above I don't plan to leave the project permanently, and in fact have been editing occasionally. Though if Giano is elected to arbcom I expect I'll move to Canada. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Your Arbcom Vote comment
A handful of people have expressed strong opposition to my comments regarding SPOV. I have written a response, and would appreciate hearing your reasons for using such strong language as "horrifying". Manning (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia granted credence to SPOV, it would then would need to grant credence to the "theological point of view", the "nationalist point of view", the "pro/anti american points of view" and any number of other "biased viewpoints that don't regard themselves as biased". That's what I consider horrifying. You're equating science to religious dogma, nationalism, and other prejudices, implying that to look at the natural world from a scientific perspective is no different from looking at the world from a jingoistic "pro-american" perspective or a dogmatic religious perspective.
- I should also add that I couldn't understand your response on the talk page, even after carefully reading it several times. Thus part of the problem may be that you have trouble expressing your ideas clearly, so that the impression you're conveying isn't what you mean to say. I hope that's the case. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I'm with you now. No I'm certainly not equating the scientific POV with dogma (although I can see how you see it that way). However there ARE groups who believe that SPOV is nothing more than dogma - these are the people who believe that we should put the words from a book written a few thousand years ago (and then translated 500 times over) ahead of centuries of empirical evidence. THese people are here and they are well organised. My arguments are designed to protect Wikipedia from those people, not to empower them.
- So what I am saying is that if Wikipedia allows "formal" recognition of a group with a specific point of view (such as SPOV), we will open the door to demands from every other group to also demand formal recognition. This is a circumstance we came perilously close to a few years back, and the demands were coming in thick and fast.
- So the main reason for Wikipedia never aligning itself "formally" with the SPOV is that we just don't need to - the evidence speaks for itself.
Homeopathy
Too late, Mercury got it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, y'all can restore your edits. The page is unprotected now. Mercury 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Butting in here, Raymond - you made a comment on "irony" to my comment against POV warriors on Whig's page. I know his history has not been good, but the recent actions by Adam and Fyslee were also unacceptable - you will see that for yourself, I am sure. Please try to understand that I feel that POV warriordom is unacceptable, from whatever direction it comes. It is not good for the encyclopaedia at any level. I know you will agree with that. No exceptions, right? Butting out again. docboat (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- In looking over your contributions, I see you claim to be an MD. Given your continuing defense of homeopathy, that knowledge gives rise to unease. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- 1. I do not "claim" - I am. 2. There are many doctors who work with homeopaths to expand the range of therapies to patients, whose needs are not met by the more classical medical methods. 3. If you look, you will see my contributions are not a defence of homeopathy, but rather a defence of good science, correct understanding of statistics, and the need to maintain an open mind and keep NPOV. 4. Well you might have unease - I am able to keep an overview of a broad range of medical approaches - including homeopathy - in daily practical clinical private practice, so I have a broader knowledge of the facts of the topic than most of the contributors there. But you will also notice that I have done very little mainspace edits on that theme, to reduce the amount of noise. That should settle your unease somewhat, as you see that I am a responsible editor. Which is why I butted into your talk page, to explain in a few words. What really bothers me is the ease with which people assume that their science-alone POV is NPOV. docboat (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- :) docboat (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- 1. I do not "claim" - I am. 2. There are many doctors who work with homeopaths to expand the range of therapies to patients, whose needs are not met by the more classical medical methods. 3. If you look, you will see my contributions are not a defence of homeopathy, but rather a defence of good science, correct understanding of statistics, and the need to maintain an open mind and keep NPOV. 4. Well you might have unease - I am able to keep an overview of a broad range of medical approaches - including homeopathy - in daily practical clinical private practice, so I have a broader knowledge of the facts of the topic than most of the contributors there. But you will also notice that I have done very little mainspace edits on that theme, to reduce the amount of noise. That should settle your unease somewhat, as you see that I am a responsible editor. Which is why I butted into your talk page, to explain in a few words. What really bothers me is the ease with which people assume that their science-alone POV is NPOV. docboat (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- In looking over your contributions, I see you claim to be an MD. Given your continuing defense of homeopathy, that knowledge gives rise to unease. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't usually go hunting for a sympathetic admin, but my go-to admin (LOL), MastCell, seems to be out of phone range! I was wondering if you could take a look at the edit summaries of Guido den Broeder in the article. He's also made this personal attack here. He needs to chill out. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Husond protected the article. Not sure about the business with Chinese references. People occasionally reference articles in other languages (say, French or German). But Chinese may be more problematic. While there's lots of valuable Chinese science, from a practical I suspect fewer readers of English WP are fluent in Chinese so it would be easier for someone to misinterpret a reference accidentally or othewise. It's a sensitive issue, because if references in other languages aren't allowed there will be people who scream objections on grounds of "cultural imperialism" or whatever. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not really on topic, but I'm going through a period of deciding whether I want to continue using the tools. You'll notice my administrative activity has dropped off substantially. It's really not worth it at the moment. We're going through a phase where people are out for blood. It's too easy to pick through 6,000 admin actions and find a few that look iffy in retrospect. And I'm not interested in becoming anyone's "test case". Someone else can delete PRODs, close AfD's, adjudicate 3RR and sockpuppet reports, and chase backlogs - at least until the pendulum swings back the other way. MastCell Talk 05:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have deliberately avoided doing any admin work too, though I haven't said anything about it. If I do, I might turn into a "test case" for de-adminning because of an announced intent to take a vacation... As you say, people are out for blood, and even arbcom seems to be joining in the merry game of "the running of the admin". Don't give up the tools; there's no harm in not using them for a while, and you may change your mind if sanity returns (though I see little reason for hope at present). Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not really on topic, but I'm going through a period of deciding whether I want to continue using the tools. You'll notice my administrative activity has dropped off substantially. It's really not worth it at the moment. We're going through a phase where people are out for blood. It's too easy to pick through 6,000 admin actions and find a few that look iffy in retrospect. And I'm not interested in becoming anyone's "test case". Someone else can delete PRODs, close AfD's, adjudicate 3RR and sockpuppet reports, and chase backlogs - at least until the pendulum swings back the other way. MastCell Talk 05:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon me you two, but come on! What happened to Adam Cuerden is a two-sided story. He has a tendency to overreact, and the reaction to that was also an overreaction. But if everyone is running scared, then the barbarians will break down the gates, and Wikipedia is going to be about as useful as the crap written by the Bush Administration to stop the use of stem cells in research. Don't let the dumbfucks get you down (I'm trying not to use the f-bomb, but this deserves it). We need you two, or Alternative Medicine will be the preferred treatment for cancer and Global Warming is just a measurement problem. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- We can still edit those articles (unless arbcom makes some off-the-wall decision that admins cannot edit controversial articles; frankly, nothing would surprise me at this point). We just can't take any administrative action at all on those or related topics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon me you two, but come on! What happened to Adam Cuerden is a two-sided story. He has a tendency to overreact, and the reaction to that was also an overreaction. But if everyone is running scared, then the barbarians will break down the gates, and Wikipedia is going to be about as useful as the crap written by the Bush Administration to stop the use of stem cells in research. Don't let the dumbfucks get you down (I'm trying not to use the f-bomb, but this deserves it). We need you two, or Alternative Medicine will be the preferred treatment for cancer and Global Warming is just a measurement problem. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm not about to stop editing at this point, and I'm not interested in resigning the tools either. It's just the climate at the moment. In retrospect, I think I already dodged a "test case" bullet here. Wikipeida goes through phases. It's a bit like the Great Fear - everyone's hopped up on bad wheat, and histrionic overreaction to whatever dramatic event occurred most recently is the norm. I think a reasonable solution will ultimately be reached in Adam's case; after the initial somewhat horrifying 48 hours, cooler heads are prevailing there. The pendulum will swing back. MastCell Talk 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you were indeed lucky that Charles Matthews decided to show some mercy on a lowly admin such as you. I'm not interested in being his next text case, so am laying low. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- So we're empowering him? Well, I guess it's better that you two are admins than not, but I liked it better when you guys kicked ass on a regular basis. And then we get admins like Thumperward. Well, we won't, because enough people realized he is POV warrior to stop him. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- "He that fights and runs away, may turn and fight another day; but he that is in battle slain, will never rise to fight again." (Tacitus) "To everything there is a season; a time to kick ass, and a time to refrain from ass kicking." (adapted from Ecclesiastes) Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'm convinced. Now can you please go gently throw the troll who's annoying me on my talk page out the door? Or at least give him a homeopathic remedy to clear his mind. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- "He that fights and runs away, may turn and fight another day; but he that is in battle slain, will never rise to fight again." (Tacitus) "To everything there is a season; a time to kick ass, and a time to refrain from ass kicking." (adapted from Ecclesiastes) Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- So we're empowering him? Well, I guess it's better that you two are admins than not, but I liked it better when you guys kicked ass on a regular basis. And then we get admins like Thumperward. Well, we won't, because enough people realized he is POV warrior to stop him. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you were indeed lucky that Charles Matthews decided to show some mercy on a lowly admin such as you. I'm not interested in being his next text case, so am laying low. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm not about to stop editing at this point, and I'm not interested in resigning the tools either. It's just the climate at the moment. In retrospect, I think I already dodged a "test case" bullet here. Wikipeida goes through phases. It's a bit like the Great Fear - everyone's hopped up on bad wheat, and histrionic overreaction to whatever dramatic event occurred most recently is the norm. I think a reasonable solution will ultimately be reached in Adam's case; after the initial somewhat horrifying 48 hours, cooler heads are prevailing there. The pendulum will swing back. MastCell Talk 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
<RI>You really need to trust my opinion on trolls. See this cute block by JzG. User:Curious Blue is exactly what I thought he/she was/is. Trust me :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's the beauty part of Wikipedia. No matter how many times one's judgement is borne out, each suspiciously well-versed brand-new SPA must be approached as if the previous dozens of socks had never happened. Otherwise it's one strike and you're out. As Nietzsche said, "He who battles with trolls must look to it that he does not become a troll himself." MastCell Talk 05:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've come to realize this is bound up in the way that Wikipedia operates. Established, productive users and administrators are considered to be of no value. They are not protected from harassment or having to deal with trolls and POV-pushers, and no effort is made to retain them. Thus, the project needs a continual flow of new
suckerseditors to replace those it burns out. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)- But isn't that wrong? When I'm not battling POV-warriors like the recent ones with Ferrylodge and Gus whatever his name is, I do try to fight vandals, bring articles to FA and GA status, and generally try to improve the project. But I'm getting more and more frustrated with the bullshit. Look at Herpes zoster. I had it close to FA, then a bunch of what can be best described as useless editors jumped into the article, and they have ruined it. First was someone who knows nothing about virology and medicine messed it up. Now I've got CAM warriors like Jagra and other nutjobs trying to force their crap into the article. I have to admit, for the first time, I wasn't mad, but just in tears about the system. I'm just hoping that Raul sees through the shit and promotes it. But this isn't the way this should work. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've come to realize this is bound up in the way that Wikipedia operates. Established, productive users and administrators are considered to be of no value. They are not protected from harassment or having to deal with trolls and POV-pushers, and no effort is made to retain them. Thus, the project needs a continual flow of new
Thanks
Thanks for your recommendation. I took a look at the link you pointed out. It states: "When involved in a discussion, it is best never to cite WP:AGF." I was not involved in the discussion. So perhaps your recommendation was not directed toward me. Ra2007 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Citing WP:AGF is one of those things that tends to backfire, like complaining about "censorship." If someone truly isn't A'ing GF it's usually best to shrug it off. There's a strong chance that they'll eventually act in such a way as to get themselves blocked, which will do more to modify their behavior than quoting WP:AGF at them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Objection to Deletion
Regarding the Urban Heat Island page and discussion -- I do not believe the quote was asserting GW is not occurring -- rather it was from the paper abstract and summarizes that measurements of GW are influenced by the urban heat island effect. I point out that the inclusion provides NPOV and also WP:Verifiability -- thus I think it helps provide balance to a section that tends strongly towards asserting that the urban heat islands are not impacting GW measurements. Thank you for your time. SunSw0rd (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep the discussion of the article on the article's talk page where it can be viewed by all interested parties. The article is on my watch list, so you don't need to notify me personally, but thanks anyway for doing so. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Username
Is this user the same as you? And If not, you may want to report an imposter, or tell me, and I will have the user blocked. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for alerting me to that. It was me. I made a few accounts before starting to edit here in earnest (kept forgetting the username and password, so I'd just make another). Could you indef block that account and protect the user/talk pages to avoid confusion? Thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Both user and talk pages redirected to yours, user name blocked indefinitely. I was sorely tempted to put "abusive sock-puppet of POV-pusher User:Raymond arritt" into the block log, but refrained ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly you weren't listening. He said that the other account came first, hence this account is clearly the abusive sock puppet that should be blocked indef. ;-) Dragons flight (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dammit. And there are so many more potentially abusive edits under this account, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, you got me. The real master account is User:Mascarasnake (it took a while to figure it out). Take it to arbcom, or if you'd rather I'll punish myself by listening to three Britney Spears albums all the way through. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't recommend that. Timothy Ball is a warning example for the effect of that treatment! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, you got me. The real master account is User:Mascarasnake (it took a while to figure it out). Take it to arbcom, or if you'd rather I'll punish myself by listening to three Britney Spears albums all the way through. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dammit. And there are so many more potentially abusive edits under this account, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly you weren't listening. He said that the other account came first, hence this account is clearly the abusive sock puppet that should be blocked indef. ;-) Dragons flight (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Both user and talk pages redirected to yours, user name blocked indefinitely. I was sorely tempted to put "abusive sock-puppet of POV-pusher User:Raymond arritt" into the block log, but refrained ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Skeptics
rv - please read criteria for inclusion on this list, which are the result of painstaking negotiation and consensus
- If you say there's a consensus, that's good enough for me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- The criteria certainly ought to be tightened up to exclude people who aren't really scientists or who have never done any work related to climate, but all efforts to do so have been non-starters for reasons you probably can imagine. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I checked out the list Category: Former global warming skeptics and did not find a single research scientist of any kind, let alone climate scientist. (Did I miss one?) That means that the entire list should be deleted, right? Vegasprof (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The category doesn't claim to be a list of scientists, any more than Category: Global warming skeptics does. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sources argument
I couldn't agree more. I wish the whole topic would go away! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Behaviorism
Some folks have classified "my pattern" of edits as disruptive?! And you've joined them? Why? I have no time to start the discussion at the moment, but you are well aware that the interim report on working hypothesis is not a final report. I'll try and learn more about the "pattern of editing", because it seems that some editors do have one. If I find the evidence of the "particular pattern" which would prove that certain group is gaming the system, where would be the place to report such violation? This is not addressed at you, I'm asking you because you're administrator and I'm seeking help in this disturbing matter. I'd also like to point out that the 9/11 article is constantly edited by a very few editors, why is that?! Thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are several things you can do. The best option is to negotiate with the other editors and try to reach an agreement. An alternative is to file what's called a "request for comment," or RFC. See WP:RFC for details on that. Do be aware that in an RFC the behavior of all involved editors are subject to examination, including the person bringing the RFC. As for the reason why the 9/11 article is edited by relatively few editors, my understanding is that many well-meaning people have been driven off by highly argumentative promoters of fringe views, and in the end they decided that they just don't need the hassle. I've deliberately avoided editing the 9/11 article myself for precisely that reason -- who needs the aggravation? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- An RfC has been filed here. Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, however there is no input outside the circle, perhaps you could share a comment there (whatever it may be), now when the discussion is over? Sum it all up. I'd appreciate that, it might help me to put things in some perspective. Of course, don't waste your time if it's scarce. Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently we have a different POV on my first steps here; nevertheless, thanks for those 2cents… best wishes. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- My comments may have seemed harsh but they were constructively intended. My impression is that you're bright and that you're capable of being a constructive contributor. The choice is yours: work more cooperatively with others and learn to follow the norms of the project, or carry on the way you've been doing and eventually wind up indefinitely blocked. I hope you choose the first path. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now there, you'll make me blush, thanks for pulling me back from that brink, sincerely. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- My comments may have seemed harsh but they were constructively intended. My impression is that you're bright and that you're capable of being a constructive contributor. The choice is yours: work more cooperatively with others and learn to follow the norms of the project, or carry on the way you've been doing and eventually wind up indefinitely blocked. I hope you choose the first path. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently we have a different POV on my first steps here; nevertheless, thanks for those 2cents… best wishes. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, however there is no input outside the circle, perhaps you could share a comment there (whatever it may be), now when the discussion is over? Sum it all up. I'd appreciate that, it might help me to put things in some perspective. Of course, don't waste your time if it's scarce. Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- An RfC has been filed here. Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I read your comments on User:Whig's talk page about this situation. But this isn't even a subtle avoidance of probation, but an obvious one. How many chances does this guy get?????? Mercury leaves, Whig goes wild. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the strict sense his probation applies only to Homeopathy. Be that as it may, at the next disruptive move I'll do my best to see that he is instructed to apply his talents elsewhere. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
UBer and Truthiness
Re: this question - as I have previously pointed out, Uber's views with regard to fringe/pseudoscience/quackery ("What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective") can basically be summed up by saying he's the ultimate believer in truthiness. Raul654 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please, Pellegrini, if you've got nothing worthwhile or constructive to contribute, then please don't at all. Your misperception, attacks, and lies about me are not at all appreciated. What would be appreciated is if you could restrain yourself from silly children's games and instead focus on relevant issues and trying to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Look, guys, it's Christmastime. Be of good cheer or I'll have to put Celine Dion discs in your stockings. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Dont think about it too much, and you will laugh
[7] "Apolitical." Brusegadi (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, where do i send the bill for a new keyboard - mine is soaked in coffee now? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Tucows
Very amusing :) Raul654 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- We aim to please. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:VANDAL?
I noticed you made this revert and labeled it vandalism. I'm wondering why you consider this vandalism though. Would it not be more polite instead to welcome the user and suggest they register, while at the same time mentioning where the appropriate talk page is and how to use it? ~ UBeR (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing it out. That was a screwup. The "rollback (VANDAL)" button is right next to the "undo" button. I'll apologize to the user and welcome them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Great comment -- I almost spewed my tea out my nose snorting with laughter when I read it.
Timely, too, by that point.
--A. B. (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just be glad you weren't drinking straight tequila. Cheers - Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
3RR
Yeah, I'm done for now at two - thanks for the reminder. That he's likely a sock makes the friendly welcome message I just left him at his talk page seem a little silly, but oh well - WP:AGF and all that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Piers Corbyn
Hi... would you care to comment about Piers Corbyn? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not really, but ok. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks :-). I see Uber has pointed him to Auto instead of the more general COI, which may help William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Winter storms
There is a discussion started by User:Juliancolton at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology about a proposed/possible new WikiProject called WikiProject Winter storms. Feel free to voice your opinion on the proposal.--JForget 01:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Comeradeash
Thanks Noroton (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you please note the RFPP request? Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to help. Watch for sockpuppets. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Boner -- er...
User:Boehner seems to portray some of the 'qualities,' shall I say, of our past friend Obedium AKA Scibaby, in my opinion. I wonder if you think, though, that the edits warrant a request for a checkuser. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Vandalism of Piers Corbyn by William Connelley
To point out that William Connelley is a persistent vandal of scientists biographies that William Connelley does not like, and that hye games the system in order to block other people, abuses WP:COI in order to do so, is not to violate any laws on Wikipedia that I am aware of.
By the way, every statement I have made can be related to actual actions by Connelley.
As I said, his vandalism is being collated. If you wish to block the temporary IP address of a coffee shop in Australia in a pathetic attempt to avoid discussion of Connelley's vandalism, be my guest. It won't be the first time that admins have acted in concert to protect one of their number who is a several conflicted editor, and it won't be the last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.186.77 (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please carefully read Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. It differs from your own. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Edits
I noticed some edits made by my account, but not by me.
Do you know what might have happend? --ジェイターナー ✉/✐ 17:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- These edits are more like low-level mischief than a compromised account. Do you have friends or family members who could have access to your computer for a few minutes when you have stepped away? Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hitler image
Thanks for reverting and blocking Happy Heinrich. However, that's the second person to hit my page with that in one day, here's the other. Is this a regular vandal, or did I somehow piss off someone new? If the former, who, and if the latter, can a checkuser be done to find the underlying IP range and block that? ThuranX (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- They're almost certainly the same guy. He hit one or two other people. I set the block to prevent editing or account creation by the underlying IP for a short period. For now I'd treat it as a nuisance but if it keeps up we can try more aggressive measures. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Nudge
Wikipedia:Suspected sock_puppets/Kirbytime. Maybe send your cows after Kirbytime. Jehochman Talk 01:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Moo. Or is that quack? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for the kind words. Regards, Mercury 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Accusations of vandalism
WP:NPA may have a definition but as a lot of editors have discovered, the definition gets flexible when an admin is the one vandalizing. In this case Connelley decides that the best way to own a biography of someone he doesn't like is to a) remove his job description of "astrophysicist" (mentioned in numerous source materials) with "citizen" (ie no job), remove paragraphs or revert on the grounds that the new version is "pro-Piers" (as opposed to what? It ain't NPOV to make statements that are false), suspended Piers Corbyn's account on WP when Connelley asks for citations and Piers doesn't answer quickly enough (ie within minutes) contravening WP:BITE.
Connelley is vandalizing the biography of a scientist whose work, if correct, invalidates his own and contradicts his political views as expressed in his candidacy for the Green Party in the UK. How about that for Conflict of Interest? Would you allow a Republican candidate to do such things to the biography of a Democrat?
I refer to Connelley as a repeat vandal because that's what he is. Any article related to Climate Science, especially to the Hockey Stick produced by his friend Michael Mann, gets the full treatment of administrative abuse.
And I'm not the only person to have complained about Connelley's abuse of admin powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.122.109 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You voted to delete in this AfD based on lack of evidence that he's notable. I've since provided 7 articles from 7 different reliable sources in which he's non-trivially interviewed/featured/mentioned as a climate skeptic (two in the article, five more in the AfD). I ask therefore that you return to the AfD and reconsider your position based on the evidence presented. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly he's notable. If kept, the article should include his record of peer reviewed publications, don't you agree? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Suess and Calvin-Benson
The Calvin cycle is part of the C4 and CAM photosynthesis but it introduces different discriminations. The discrimination depends not only on the enzyme but on the relative CO2 reservoir size. Partial, selective information was worse than no statement at all. Jclerman (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I can see that. I've got a ref on the relative discrimination of C3 and C4 that I'll be adding soon, but first I'll need to add some explanation of how the deltas are computed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Junk e-mail
I took out your reference and statement about truthfulness because it didn't really contribute anything to the article and definitely was not supported by the reference, which instead advised all business e-mail users to be careful to conform to the requirements of CAN-SPAM. I think in general that if the reference is reliable that level of detail should be in the CAN-SPAM article not in the junk e-mail article, but I would stick to what the reference says instead of speculating about whether or not CAN-SPAM defines truthfulness. In the reference it simply states that junk e-mail with the subject "Order Confirmation" but containing a sales pitch is not truthful. 199.125.109.79 (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for Speedy Deletion of Post carbon
I'm not 100% on the procedures for requesting speedy deletion of an article, so I thought I would bring this up here. Post carbon is an obvious POV fork. The article is composed of an unreferenced two-sentence description of the subject being the "view of the world after the full decline or not use of petroleum," accompanied by external links to four environmental activist groups and someone's site on Geocities. It was tagged for merger with Low-carbon economy back in September '07 and nothing has been done about it since. As I understand, with you being an administrator, you would be able to legitimately take care of this. If that's not how it works, I would really appreciate if you could direct me to the proper channels to resolve this issue. Thanks. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is a tag you are supposed to use of the form CSD|reason but anyway I have speedy deleted this as shallow--BozMo talk 13:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sock Block templates
btw I think you should use {{sockblock|Obedium}} which adds the sock to the correct lists etc --BozMo talk 13:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I was torn between doing this and WP:DENY. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Disambig page
Curious why is there an ad for an "EVP Information" site on the EVP disambiguation page. I was going to remove it, but stopped when I saw you'd spared it [8]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I must have just overlooked it. Zot. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
I second the above. Raul654 (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I third the above. Keep up the great work Raymond, and best wishes for 2008. Antandrus (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I fourth. Mercury 22:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to all, and best wishes for 2008. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
WIHSI, Dept.
Gosh, I'm flattered to discover myself among the august company in your "Wish I Had Said It, Dept.", especially since I was only paraphrasing something Guy had written earlier. Re: the current SA Drama, within the gaggle of allies, advisors, detractors, and those playing Palmer Joss to his Ellie Arroway on his Talk Page, I think you are a positive influence. A change is warranted. Perhaps cool-headedness will eventually replace frustration. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Edits on 'Attribution of recent climate change'
Hey Raymond, I guess you are an admin (right?). In my opinion, the newly created user Chemical Euphoria has violated WP:3RR in the article Attribution of recent climate change: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Anything, we can do about that? Cheers, --Splette :) How's my driving? 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Plus, I think it's likely he's a sockpuppet of User:Scibaby/User:Obedium. Could you file a 3RR report on him at WP:AN3? As an involved admin, I'd rather a neutral admin did the block. Thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The third diff is problematic. Hmm, I think it is a sock as well. It might be more productive to have an uninvolved admin apply the duck test. A forgiving admin may think 3RR does not apply, (no warning given and third diff is problematic) but the most kinder-garden-teacheresque admin will recognize that sock if given the evidence... Brusegadi (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, done [13]. This is the first time, I report anything. Hope it works. This sockpuppetry on the global warming articles is extremely annoying. Well, you know... --Splette :) How's my driving? 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Indeed, the 3RR procedure is quite cumbersome. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are welcome. --Splette :) How's my driving? 07:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Indeed, the 3RR procedure is quite cumbersome. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, done [13]. This is the first time, I report anything. Hope it works. This sockpuppetry on the global warming articles is extremely annoying. Well, you know... --Splette :) How's my driving? 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you think?
I know that global warming controversy is supposed to be a platform to WP:WEIGHTlessly expound at length the views of global warming skeptics, as published on their blogs or rejected letters-to-the-editor. Still, what do you think of this, both as a piece of research and as a Wikipedia source, either there or on the main global-warming articles? It's apparently been accepted by Geophysical Research Letters. MastCell Talk 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jacobson is a highly regarded researcher. There's also observational evidence from free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments supporting increased O3 in future climates. I heard a seminar on the FACE ozone stuff a few months back, but don't know how much of it has been published. And of course GRL is a top journal (even if they did reject the last paper I sent them... grr). Bottom line, the article certainly is usable as a reference. It might be good to wait until it's actually published but GRL is very fast so it won't be long. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Apology re Global warming
Yes, indeed you were right all along, and I was probably being more fatuous than necessary. In fact, I should have read the Scientific opinion on climate change article more carefully. But the fact is that the article has improved as a result of your "spelling it out" for slow folks like me. Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
You were also pretty supportive. As far as unbidden advice goes, I'm always especially appreciative of warnings regarding particularly dark and dangerous alleys I might find myself exploring. I'll probably explore them anyway, but a heads up might keep my guard up a little bit more.
By the way, nice sockpuppet parade on Global Warming -- it ALMOST completely covers the alphabet between this and this. It kind of makes a guy curious about the ratio in the course of a month of new sockpuppets to genuine new users. Oh well, who says knowledge is easy? I'll leave you with sort of another "I wish I had said it" bit you might like:
- The power of the community to decide, of course, asks us to reexamine what we mean when we say that something is “true.” We tend to think of truth as something that resides in the world. The fact that two plus two equals four is written in the stars—we merely discovered it. But Wikipedia suggests a different theory of truth…. The community decides that two plus two equals four the same way it decides what an apple is: by consensus. Yes, that means that if the community changes its mind and decides that two plus two equals five, then two plus two does equal five. The community isn’t likely to do such an absurd or useless thing, but it has the ability.
Here's hoping for one "ability" that won't be developed. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm willing to bet that if we wrote 2+2=4 someone would hang a [citation needed] tag on it. Cheers -- Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you'd at least have to say that according to a current majority of the mathematical community, 2+2=4, though significant and notable dissent remains (see content fork Two-plus-two controversy). Also perhaps cite noted scientist Michael Crichton on how the supposed "consensus" that 2+2=4 is the work of timid lemming mathematicians who are more afraid of losing their grant funding than speaking the truth. Close with note about how Galileo was persecuted by the Church, with explicit comparison to the 2+2 dissenters... and there you have a typically "neutral" Wikipedia article. MastCell Talk 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's a keeper. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you'd at least have to say that according to a current majority of the mathematical community, 2+2=4, though significant and notable dissent remains (see content fork Two-plus-two controversy). Also perhaps cite noted scientist Michael Crichton on how the supposed "consensus" that 2+2=4 is the work of timid lemming mathematicians who are more afraid of losing their grant funding than speaking the truth. Close with note about how Galileo was persecuted by the Church, with explicit comparison to the 2+2 dissenters... and there you have a typically "neutral" Wikipedia article. MastCell Talk 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- At last! Now I can claim my Triple Crown - I've been quoted by you, Stephan Schulz, and Nunh-huh. MastCell Talk 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope.....
.... this edit was OK with you. David D. (Talk) 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good move, it was definitely outside the bounds of WP:TALK and should have been removed. Sometimes I'm over-timid about removing offtopic stuff like that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's see. An user comes out of the woodwork to edit a global warming related article. His user page says "I'm here to help cleanup the liberal bias on wikipedia!". His user name says that he works for nasa, his user page says he's both a solid state physicist and a rocket scientist, and he's apparently published papers debunking global warming. Raul654 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Check out his talk page. He has a long history of injecting POV; among other things he insists NASA was founded in 1957 no matter what the agency itself says. Amazingly, he's only been blocked once. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed that. Raul654 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just compared his contribs with User:ChaplineRVine. You might want to fire up that checkuser thingy of yours. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
harvard
premature close, in my opinion. But since there's a discussion on enWP, I'll continue there if I have the time. DGG (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe so. You were bringing up some good points. But it was starting to go in circles. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Waterboarding
Seems it's time for a more iron-fist approach. Do you have any objection to me unprotecting the article and dealing with this crap? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- As long as you're uninvolved in the squabbling, do whatever you think best. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since both of you have some experience trying to rein in this article, please feel free to comment on a proposed topic ban of Neutral Good (talk · contribs) here. MastCell Talk 19:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed in principle. However I think you really ought to remove the material referencing those two other articles so as not to be accused of trying to prejudice the discussion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your point. I mentioned them only to indicate that this editor has expressed an interest in working on articles other than waterboarding, but perhaps in this instance the specific articles are better left unnamed. MastCell Talk 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The protection log is already pretty much a mess. I really think the better approach is to start issuing blocks for misbehaving users. Personally, I could use some moral support. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Raymond (and MZMcBride), I've made a suggestion on ANI about a possible way forward. Check it out and let me know what you think Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Last_time_I.27m_doing_this:_Talk:Waterboarding_.28again.29 SirFozzie (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll go look on AN/I too. Sometimes, protecting an article can really help, but that's been done a couple of times here already, so I think we've empirically established that protecting the article is not a way forward. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Waterboarding
Can you please revert the last edit made before locking the article. The editor removed the link in the header (i.e., See Classification as Torture) that had specifically been discussed and agreed to on the talk page without any discussion. Remember (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per WP:WRONG I always make a point of protecting on the article as it stands at the moment. I'll be glad to do this, provided you pose the request on the article's talk page and gain support. I'm not willing to tread into that minefield unless there's irrefutable consensus for the change. It might help build goodwill among the editors on the article to show that they can reach agreement on something before proceeding to thornier issues. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I already did that Talk:Waterboarding#Re-Proposal. Are you suggesting that I do that all over again? It also should be noted that the editor who changed it didn't even get involved in the discussion or post his reasons for changing. I feel that this was one thing that was resolved and to open it up again will be a unnecessary hassle. Remember (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer to previous discussion. When the article is protected I'm only willing to make changes that are absolutely uncontroversial. The wording was favored by 8-4, which is not a clear enough mandate for me to make the change. (This in no way endorses the reasoning of the opposing !votes.) You're welcome to ask another admin for a second opinion; if they're willing to make the change I won't object. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I already did that Talk:Waterboarding#Re-Proposal. Are you suggesting that I do that all over again? It also should be noted that the editor who changed it didn't even get involved in the discussion or post his reasons for changing. I feel that this was one thing that was resolved and to open it up again will be a unnecessary hassle. Remember (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Waterboarding
I do hope that your talk of handing out blocks on Waterboarding didn't include me. Protecting this article is unhelpful. Having have come in as an uninvolved admin to attempt to fix this article, which is basically a good article under attack from a bunch of SPAs, sockpuppets and IPs , it will never improve if constantly protected which is the aim of this group. Please also see my posting on the talkpage.BLACKKITE 07:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
SciBaby socks
I don't know if you say my reply on my talk page. Using a new approach to checkuser that I first tried last week with Jon Awbrey, I caught a whole slew of SciBaby socks. You should recognize many of them. Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Damn! That was a lot of socks. *applause* --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks much. He's adept at changing tactics so I really appreciate your willingness to confirm with CU. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Carbon dioxide
You reverted a number of my edits on Carbon Dioxide. You were specific about the reservoir issue for carbon. I said in my edits that co2 in the atmosphere was the reservoir for carbon that reaches plants and eventually animals. You mentioned that soil was a large reservoir. Actually I was correct. Soil has sequestered carbon. That carbon must become co2 before it can be recycled, through the atmosphere (or as disolved co2 in water- as in the decomposition of dead water-borne life) as a reservoir, by photosynthesis. You also reverted other material but did not explain why. Everything I added contained only facts. I'm wondering if such facts are inconsistent with your views on the environment. (I read above your comments on the chances that man is not the cause of global warming, and your unscientific willingness to believe the majority view.) You mentioned garbled material on energy flux. What would you like me to explain to you- and possibly consider writing about more clearly? I assert that you should only revert content that you know (I guess I am assuming you have a high threshold for this, but I can't be sure.) not to be true. If you don't like the way something is worded, then change it to wording that you accept. If you are not willing to change it, then you are not interested enough in the subject to be a helpful contributor to the article. blackcloak (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- This conversation should take place on the article talk page, where other interested editors can give their views. The article doesn't belong to you and me. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- You may move it there if that is your preference. I have nothing to hide. One major problem is with the way you are dealing with the issues, and with your knowledge of the issues. And I never suggested that the article belongs to me, or you, or anybody else for that matter. blackcloak (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Tag!
You're it! Raul654 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ho ho, I'm nearly famous. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
EVP
On this, they changed the text to talk about ITC instead of EVP, changed the source, and left the old text on the source, which was representing the EVP skepdic article. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:METEO Active members
Why won't anybody do something about it?
Nobody gives a shit about what's going on. For months now, people have offered to help me, and when push comes to shove I'm basically left in the lurch having to bear the entire brunt of the bullshit. Meanwhile, they fuck about on my user talk page, revert my contributions to article talk pages, act as meat puppets, tag team revert, tendentiously repeat themselves, fill sections with unrelated chatter, and obstruct meaningful edits with no end in sight. I am alone. No one with administrative powers is willing to do anything about the situation. All the other users that oppose them either go into hiding or leave Wikipedia. And I'm stuck receiving notices from people telling me when I'm doing the wrong thing. Meanwhile, these jokers get to run and play across Wikipedia. When was the last time someone told any of that cadre to just cool it? It seems that the only time people pay attention is when the shit hits the fan for real. Then when I come back all the old games begin again and I am left without any support.
ScienceApologist (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- But taking the bait gets you nowhere. They just get to point at you and say "look, SA is being uncivil". Better for you to stay calm so that you have better standing to put them in the hot seat for being uncivil, POV pushing, and so on. You think I don't go through the same crap that you do, and worse, on the global warming-related pages? The only way to counter the aggressive promotion of nonsense is not to take the bait, keep to the high road, and build your credibility so that people pay attention when you raise objections. It's not easy. It's frustrating as hell, and there are times when I want to rip some of these idiots a new one. But it's the only way that works. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why do I have to be the one putting them in the hot seat? Furthermore, I find the the civility guidelines to be condescending and culturally insensitive, and frankly, no one cares about POV-pushing at all anymore. Those involved in the dispute resolution process call it a "content dispute" and since there are no recognized expert editors at Wikipedia, those who know what we are talking about waste our time preaching at a whole new batch of clueless people who happen upon some obscure metapage and put in their idiotic two-cents. And still, no one gives a shit. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)