→Would you consider appearing: new section |
Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) →EBDCM Request for unblock: Grrrrrrr |
||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
:: It would be important to also consult [[User:Thatcher|Thatcher]], who ran the CU. -- <i><b><font color="004000">[[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">[[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]</font></b> 21:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
:: It would be important to also consult [[User:Thatcher|Thatcher]], who ran the CU. -- <i><b><font color="004000">[[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">[[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]</font></b> 21:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Why should we unblock a POV-warrior, who treats those of us who did not agree with him like garbage, who used anonymous socks to help out his edit-warring, and who refused to comply with any number of Wiki-rules? Why do we spend so much time helping out these anti-science POV warriors? Why don't we just write a well-written and neutral encyclopedia, and if you want to play along, good, if you don't, go to the Anti-Science-pedia, of which there are several, including Conservapedia? What a waste of bandwidth. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 05:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Would you consider appearing == |
== Would you consider appearing == |
Revision as of 05:11, 1 April 2008
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Cow_highland_cattle.jpg/180px-Cow_highland_cattle.jpg)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Cowbarnstar.jpg/150px-Cowbarnstar.jpg)
Sorry I wasn't here to take your call. You can leave a message after the tone.
Tone
Sock puppeteer killing magic wand
I think I have found a "magic wand" capable of killing sockpuppeeters (or at least making them substantially go away). As of tonight, I'm using it on Scibaby and Tile Join. Let's see what happens. Raul654 (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Magic wand"? Sounds almost... paranormal... MastCell Talk 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it appears Raul has unleashed himself from the Forces of Darkness that have too long suppressed The TruthTM about how our world is one with the planet Cephalexin. Everything you "know" is wrong.[1] Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Covering note on GW
Hi Raymond. Thanks for changing "recent decades;" it had gotten under my skin.
What do you think of a covering note to accompany it? "The anthropogenic (human caused) factors that are the primary cause of global warming date to the beginning of the industrial era but became noticable in temperature records around the middle of the twentieth century. The term global warming is not typically applied to short-term weather patterns; the trend has been identified in multi-year and decadal records, rather than from month-to-month or from one single year to the next."
Something like that. The pessimistic argument is that any new words create new arguments. The optimistic argument is that the next time someone says "this January was really cold" we would already have a note covering the concern. Marskell (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The "it was cold last week in Wagga Wagga" argument already is covered in the FAQ.[2] I'm a little wary about giving one more basis for contention. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding block vs. ban
Yes, it's true, I don't know the difference between a block and a ban (diff). I've read WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN several times, and yet I still don't understand it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- The basic difference is that a ban is a social construct, while a block is the use of a software tool that prohibits an editor from an editing. So we can decide to ban someone, but then the ban needs to be enforced with a block. Conversely, an editor who is blocked is not necessarily banned -- we haven't said as a community "we don't want this person around," but an admin has decided to prevent someone's editing in order to avoid damage to wikipedia. The difference is subtle but essential. It's not a good sign when someone wants to be an admin so badly that they've gone through five (5) RfA yet they don't understand this important distinction. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. Like I said in the RfA, I've just never dealt with banning before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in at
This place--Filll (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
No, thanks for the heads up. I've been trying to help/keep him in line at the expelled page. He agrees with me alot, but he can get a little inflamatory. He reminds me of myself when I started editing controversial articles. Just wondering, are you watching his page or something? I'm suprised that edit got noticed so fast. (about 2 minutes). Saksjn (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Martijn Hoekstra
Hello Raymond. Regarding your comment on this RfA: I believe you should actually look into this in depth. As I noted in my support comment, I believe Martijn has actually done a perfectly decent job in that area. (See also my conversation with Regents Park.) I'm particularly concerned because, although you're not actually opposing the candidate, your comment does imply that Martijn's edits to articles (and debates) related to paedophilia are a cause for concern. Of course if they were, I'd oppose his RfA myself. But since they're not (and I honestly believe that if you review his work, you'll come to the same conclusion), giving credence to hurtful and unsupported accusations is unfair. I particularly sympathize with Martijn because I was also the target of SqueakBox's accusations a while back (see User_talk:SqueakBox/Archivehistory#NAMBLA_article for one of many instances). Though he did at some point sort of say that perhaps, yes, I wasn't a supported of paedophiles (!!), I never did get an apology. As an admin, I do get mud thrown my way every now and then (as I'm sure you do) and I've come to expect it. But being flimsily accused of "playing into the hands of pro pedophile activists" is way beyond what I ever expected. I use my real name on-wiki so I'm not exactly thrilled about this being forever linked to my name because of a benign speedy-close. The end-result is that I've stopped trying to resolve any dispute even remotely related to WP:PAW (until a few days ago when, looking into Martijn's history, I ended up commenting at Talk:Pro-pedophile activism). I suspect this is what happens with many editors: if you do get involved, chances are you'll face these accusations at some point unless you agree with SqueakBox. I should note that he placed a similar oppose during Haemo's RfA (diff) without a shred of evidence. As a matter of fact, he later retracted the oppose from the RfA but, as far as I know, never offered any sort of apology to Haemo. In all fairness to Martijn, I think it would be nice of you to try and figure out whether or not his involvement in PAW-related articles is indeed a "deal-breaker" because I think your current comment reads like "I'm not confident that Martijn isn't supporting pro-paedophile activists on Wikipedia". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is a sensitive subject and yes I too am sometimes concerned that SB goes overboard. I've added an explanatory note which I hope clears things up. There are some instances where our well-meaning fairness and attempt to compromise is not merited. I find it deeply ironic that the community blocks people for saying naughty words but welcomes editing by PPAs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- The community does not welcome edits by pro-paedophile activists. They are blocked, as they should be, and then just reappear as sockpuppets, there ain't much we can do about that. You speak about "well-meaning fairness and attempt to compromise" but that's not what this is about. Martijn isn't advocating compromise with paedophile activists and to interpret his involvement in that way is absurd. He's advocating treating these articles like we treat all articles: with a deep belief that neutrality in tone is essential to a good encyclopedia. Now it so happens that pro-paedophile activists tend to argue that adding "sexual relations with children is morally abhorrent" every other sentence is a bad idea and argue as such because it goes against their agenda. I think it's a bad idea because, for no apparent benefit other than denying the bad guys any sense of satisfaction, it fundamentally skews the article with a moral judgement that the readers are smart enough to make themselves. So, yes, in these cases I'm siding with them. Not because I'm a paedophile activist, not because I'm making a well-meaning attempt at compromise. Because I believe that facts speak for themselves and because I don't condescend to the readers of Wikipedia. I don't care what the paedophile activists think (and from what I remember from my previous involvement in those debates, they're easy enough to spot and just ignore) but this kind of "you're either with us or you're against us" and "oh but if we don't add this, then the paedophiles have won" attitude just poisons any attempt to work productively on these articles. Ironically, any time I say something like that, I can just feel SqueakBox, Guy, El_C putting me on their mental list of "people not to trust because their judgement is clouded by their well-meaning fairness and desire to compromise". Sorry for the rant but it's just so frustrating to see this bunch of "neutrals" on Martijn's RfA when nobody is actually trying to dig through his work or to get in touch with SqueakBox and ask him exactly what the problem with Martijn's edits is. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I struck my neutral. This is obviously so sensitive a topic that any comment can be misconstrued. I've purposefully stayed the hell away from anything even remotely related to that topic, and our exchange here convinces me that's the only rational course. You can rest assured that I'll never, ever say a single word on any thread where the topic comes into play. It's just not worth the aggravation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah rats... Now I feel like crap. I have to agree that it's not worth the aggravation. On the other hand, the last thing we need is cool-headed people avoiding these pages. (Which is basically what I now do and what you're now planning to do.) I once asked ArbCom (through its mailing list) to just protect all these articles and let competent academics take over. I got a "thank you for your opinion". Sigh... Wikipedia has yet to figure out a way to deal with super-sensitive articles. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just sent you email, so problem solved! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah rats... Now I feel like crap. I have to agree that it's not worth the aggravation. On the other hand, the last thing we need is cool-headed people avoiding these pages. (Which is basically what I now do and what you're now planning to do.) I once asked ArbCom (through its mailing list) to just protect all these articles and let competent academics take over. I got a "thank you for your opinion". Sigh... Wikipedia has yet to figure out a way to deal with super-sensitive articles. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I struck my neutral. This is obviously so sensitive a topic that any comment can be misconstrued. I've purposefully stayed the hell away from anything even remotely related to that topic, and our exchange here convinces me that's the only rational course. You can rest assured that I'll never, ever say a single word on any thread where the topic comes into play. It's just not worth the aggravation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- The community does not welcome edits by pro-paedophile activists. They are blocked, as they should be, and then just reappear as sockpuppets, there ain't much we can do about that. You speak about "well-meaning fairness and attempt to compromise" but that's not what this is about. Martijn isn't advocating compromise with paedophile activists and to interpret his involvement in that way is absurd. He's advocating treating these articles like we treat all articles: with a deep belief that neutrality in tone is essential to a good encyclopedia. Now it so happens that pro-paedophile activists tend to argue that adding "sexual relations with children is morally abhorrent" every other sentence is a bad idea and argue as such because it goes against their agenda. I think it's a bad idea because, for no apparent benefit other than denying the bad guys any sense of satisfaction, it fundamentally skews the article with a moral judgement that the readers are smart enough to make themselves. So, yes, in these cases I'm siding with them. Not because I'm a paedophile activist, not because I'm making a well-meaning attempt at compromise. Because I believe that facts speak for themselves and because I don't condescend to the readers of Wikipedia. I don't care what the paedophile activists think (and from what I remember from my previous involvement in those debates, they're easy enough to spot and just ignore) but this kind of "you're either with us or you're against us" and "oh but if we don't add this, then the paedophiles have won" attitude just poisons any attempt to work productively on these articles. Ironically, any time I say something like that, I can just feel SqueakBox, Guy, El_C putting me on their mental list of "people not to trust because their judgement is clouded by their well-meaning fairness and desire to compromise". Sorry for the rant but it's just so frustrating to see this bunch of "neutrals" on Martijn's RfA when nobody is actually trying to dig through his work or to get in touch with SqueakBox and ask him exactly what the problem with Martijn's edits is. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
EBDCM Request for unblock
Hello, I'd like to ask you to take a look at this request for unblock - I'm not completely familiar with the situation behind this one, and so don't feel comfortable dealing with it without consulting someone who is. As it's sat there for two days now, I assume many others feel the same. Thanks for your time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've been watching it. I'm not going to unblock, but I think he deserves a fair chance at an appeal, so I've been helping him with the technicalities. The ANI thread on which I based the block is [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive388#EBDCM]. Given the extensive discussion and the fact that the block already has been reviewed by others, it would help avoid the potential for drama if you check with other admins before unblocking. For my own part I'll not object to any well-considered decision to unblock. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why should we unblock a POV-warrior, who treats those of us who did not agree with him like garbage, who used anonymous socks to help out his edit-warring, and who refused to comply with any number of Wiki-rules? Why do we spend so much time helping out these anti-science POV warriors? Why don't we just write a well-written and neutral encyclopedia, and if you want to play along, good, if you don't, go to the Anti-Science-pedia, of which there are several, including Conservapedia? What a waste of bandwidth. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider appearing
At an audio discussion (or you could participate by IM as well) here. We have had some big cheeses on from the Foundation. And I have appeared twice; it is sort of fun. Come join us! (you can do it by regular phone too if you are in Canada or the US).--Filll (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)