Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:21, 23 June 2010

Not welcome

You're not welcome on my talk page. Please don't post there William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn right! --75.155.131.181 (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want me to post there then don't sully my interactions with others. Your incivility becomes my business when it involves me and I will communicate your problems to you as needed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You are directed to note that it is standard civility that when someone asks you to not post on their talk page, it is typically regarded as incivil and disruptive to knowingly continue posting on their talk page, except for mandated warnings and notifications - ie, notices of user conduct RFCs, ANI references, ArbCom and similar notifications. Obvious slips of memory are, of course, fine, and civil attempts at reconsiliation are typically looked apon favorably, but, because users are unable to unwatch their talk page, it is generally unnaceptable to follow them there. If you persist in making comments like this or this, however, you will likley be prevented from further harassment. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would love for you to take those comments to a group of uninvolved admins (unlikely to find that group though) since those comments are perfectly acceptable and simply acknowledge the facts of the situation. As I said, my statement stands, if WMC baits me or others as I interact with them then I will point out his flaws in the hope that he can improve himself. In-group bullying tactics will not work on me though since[REDACTED] is not my life and I really could care less if I'm banned. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel I need to go to a group of uninvolved admins. In fact, I will allow you to pick any admin and present the following question to them: "A user asked me not to post on their talk page. Absent required notices, sincere attempts at reconsiliation and occasional slips of memory, would it be a blockable offense for me to continue to use their talk page?" Any admin you want. Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What part of "I don't care if I'm blocked" don't you get? If it makes you feel better then consider the above comments that you linked as formal civility warnings to WMC. Better yet, instead of harassing me on the subject (a shocker!), you could attempt to leash in WMC's behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To your questions - firstly, I get that you don't care if you're blocked, but I don't feel that harassing people - any people - is acceptable, regardless of if it will get you blocked or not. Secondly, civility warnings are not "required notices," and would not be excempt. Thirdly, I don't feel I'm harassing you, and I don't take assignments as to what I need to do to party B to make party A remain civil. Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well since you don't feel that harassing "any people" is acceptable then I expect you to spend an equal or greater amount of your time admonishing WMC for his far greater harassment of Lar. You do consider him to be a person right?

It seems to me that your time would be far better spent going after the source of the problem. Who instigated the exchange between WMC and myself? It was WMC through his unacceptable comment on Lar's page that had nothing to do with him. While shooting the messenger and blaming the victim are common tactics among the tyrants and defense attorneys I think we can rise to a higher level of discourse here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said "I don't take assignments as to what I need to do to party B to make party A remain civil." You will either avoid his talk page, seek to reconsile with him, or be blocked for it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

TGL, do yourself a favour, ignore WMC. You will be better for it in the long run mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your assignments are clear; the algorithm is transparent. Reconcilation, something I would very much enjoy, seems to be both undesirable and even alien to WMC and clearly impossible if I can't interact with him on his talkpage, but must instead be subject to his churlish snipes on subjects that don't involve him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• As Hipocrite mentioned, you'll be cut a lot of slack for genuine attempts at reconciliation. Beyond that, though, please stop posting to other users' talk pages after they've asked you to. If you're aware of instances where William, or anyone else, is similarly breaching this convention, please let me know and I'll be happy to have a similar discussion with him. MastCell  18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to stop something I haven't done MastCell? This is quite ridiculous and indicative of the situation. Go warn WMC (or better yet block him for a week) for his incredibly rude behavior while subject to his repeatedly unenforced and useless civility probation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see this isn't going very well as conversations go. I appreciate your barnstar. I appreciate your desire to bring WMC to account for snarking about it. But I must caution you that we do give editors wide latitude on their own pages and if WMC tells you you're not welcome, you're not. The only allowable exception under policy to that is if you are giving routine notifications or warnings and there is reason for them. So, I'd say just let it go. Trust me, it will work out better. Playing the martyr ("I don't care if I'm blocked") is way overrated. If you really feel the need to comment and just can't resist, you can always find a talk page where the owner doesn't sweep things under the rug willy nilly and doesn't tell people he takes a dislike to that they have to go away, and comment there instead... if you pick the right page you'll find that your message gets through anyway. But taking the high road is the better approach. Easy advice to give. Hard advice to take. Hope it helps though. ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it and it was sincere. Frankly, I'd assumed (and still do) that you find me distasteful, but no worries, I'm not bothered by it. I have no intention of seeking WMC out and posting on his talk page now that he has asked me not to (MastCell was incorrect in his assertion that I had), but this decision was based on simple respect, which WMC may hopefully learn from by example. I do greatly appreciate the openness of your talk page (I believe I've mentioned this before), but I don't think I'll need to soapbox there too much. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

frivolous

I don't think you understand. Which is a pity. My request on the enforcement is not frivolous. I have no interest in acting as an admin in this area. I would genuinely like to be banned from it to confirm this. Editors such as ATren are trying to say to me. "You pick holes in Lar's involvement, what about you?" Well I am just an editor in this situation not an admin and I wish to make this completely clear. If you had followed any of my past comments, which I doubt you have, you would have noticed that I think sanctions are a failure.

One thing I do take very very seriously is admins acting as self appointed sheriffs with self appointed agendas, I think this goes against[REDACTED] principles. This may seem frivolous to you but it is not to me. And before you go off and say "What about X, or What about Y?" I am dealing with Z right now. I will come to deal with X and Y when the situation arises. You have a problem with X or Y, you deal with it and stop calling my attempts frivolous. I won't call your attempts frivolous. Polargeo (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but it seems to be a frivolous request to me and I honestly think you should look deeply into Lar's history and look at the work he has done. I do wish I had known about your anathema towards "Big Boss" admins - I could've used the support when 2over2 decided to unilaterally ban me for 6 months without even going through the proper probationary channels. Has Lar done anything like that at all?

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -George Orwell TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood" -1984, Orwell

There there, bro. I'm sure someone will understand you one day. Keep fighting whatever fight it is you're fighting. --Ubiq (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I already understand myself quite well. I'm an INTJ/INTP hybrid with an addiction to truth, justice and the American way. And like that famous orphan, my moral code is a far greater weakness than any shade of kryptonite. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

You're skirting close to your topic ban, which 2/0 explicitly noted included user talk pages. NW (Talk) 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban that didn't go through proper channels (because it couldn't) and which demonstrated 2over2's incredible bias and dishonesty. I've stayed away from climate change articles and I was told that Lar's talk page was open to all discussion. The fact that the unwelcome truths I've once again articulated have merited me another threat comes as no great surprise. If you really want to motivate me to take this to ArbCom and overturn the entire ban then go for it. We both know this topic ban is complete and utter guano. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite what you think of the topic ban, it was properly logged under the terms of the probation and is therefore in effect. Feel free to take it to ArbCom if you wish, but I'm giving you advice that an uninvolved admin choosing to block you for such discussion on Lar's talk page would be perfectly in the clear. NW (Talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I shall AGF, thank you for the advice, and enjoy my relative inactivity before some uninvolved admin helps cure me of my "live and let live" laziness. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

re Stephan Schulz

Please note that Stephan Schulz does not care to be referred to by his initials; from his name you may determine his country of origin, and 20th Century history of that area infers a dubious connection with the initials SS. You are certainly not the first to make that mistake - I have also (which is why I know StS' views on the matter, and his preference for shorthanding his name). I should be grateful if you would self revert - it is on Lar's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Germans are so sensitive! TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC statement

Just wanted to let you know that I modified my statement since you signed it. Cla68 (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Thegoodlocust

Following discussion at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Thegoodlocust, your topic ban from climate change related articles and discussions has been reset to expire 2010-11-07. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have violated your topic ban here, assuming "all articles and discussions related to climate change" really does mean "all articles and discussions related to climate change." Self-reverting might be a path to consider. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, 2over0 specifically said that Arbcom does not apply. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any provision to that effect in the sanctions log. Perhaps I overlooked it, in which case a link would be helpful. If you can provide such, I will ask an admin to append the sanctions log to prevent future misunderstandings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly feel like wasting my time finding some obscure diff. I'm sure 2over0 referenced it in the log somewhere, but if he wants to retroactively change the terms of my topic ban, once again extending them past the terms allowed by the climate change probation, and while I've filed a complaint against him then he is welcome to take that route - but I doubt he specifically will take such action (I can take a few guesses at who will though) since it would provide even more evidence that he is unfit to regulate in the climate change arena. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for paying attention, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, but I do not believe that we can or should ban people from certain higher level dispute resolution mechanisms as it comes too close to denying the right of appeal. This was generally endorsed at Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive 4#Proposed boilerplate for scope of a standard topic (article+talk) ban. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any place where this may be discussed? Although it may be unfair to extend the ban in this instance, if the scope was unclear or didn't include ArbCom, it certainly defeats the purpose of a topic ban for the editor to weigh in and take sides in disputes that don't involve them directly. The participation in the current dispute looks like a case in point. There's no right being protected by allowing a topic-banned editor to vent like that about a topic they're supposed to be avoiding. The "right of appeal" is a right to be heard in matters concerning you, not a right to wade into other people's disputes. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it not involve me directly? Stephan came to my talk page, in the manner common to his side, after I dared to move his comment to the appropriate section - and I was certainly not the first editor to do so. The ArbCom case is specifically about Stephan violating the rules in this manner and entirely appropriate. But, perhaps more importantly, a demonstration of the intimidation that is common in this area that is meant to drive away all opposition and thus achieve "consensus." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've stricken my comment about this case, and don't really want to stick my nose in the tent here. Just as a general matter, a topic ban would logically involve getting involved in other people's disputes, but it doesn't mean closing editors off from the dispute resolution process for things that concern them. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I believe, if I haven't said it before, that you are a stand up guy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's really cool. We disagree on something and stay in good spirits. I think gracious versus unfriendly is at least as important as pro versus anti on any given topic. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

About that RfAr comment

He's right. Please refactor that. It won't do any good, and it will just rile up people unnecessarily. It will also do some harm. Please consider it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. The point I was making is that extremists do things like post private personal information of their opponents online and accuse them of various crimes/mental insanity. I freely admit that they are far more experienced at ArbCom/mediation and will put on their finest dress clothes for the show, but I stand by my analogy that extremists are incapable of writing good encyclopedia articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"extremists do things like post private personal information of their opponents online and accuse them of various crimes" -- Sort of like the email hack, eh? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Boris, I'd love to debate you on the subject, to correct the various misrepresentations...and, let's see, I guess the WP:CIVIL way of saying this would be to call them the "untruths" of your statement, and I'm sure you'd like me to do this as well, since you'd have successfully come to my talk page and baited me into breaking the ridiculous user talk topic ban that your friend 2over0 inflicted on me and then you could get me banned in time to prevent me from presenting any more evidence at Arbcom. Sorry, but if you really want an honest and "open" debate then you are welcome to email me and I'll explain why my side wins every public debate on the subject (hint: the truth helps) - and I promise I won't be "malicious and stupid" in any private discourse with you, but until I can speak publicly then you and your friends are unwelcome to use my talk page as bait and I'll "pull a Connolley" on any such engagement attempts.

Too bad admins never sanction people for obvious baiting eh? But if that was the case then there wouldn't be so many ArbCom cases on the subject. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What private personal information was posted online after the leak from cru then? mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The comment is extremely unwise and you should consider refactoring it. If you do not then a clerk may remove it. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment is perfectly fine. The only "problem" with it is that it highlights the extremist actions of a few people and so some of their ideological allies like Jenochman, who also has had a previous dispute with me, want to misrepresent it as much as possible to censor it. This censorship using administrative tools is one of the main problems with the dispute and I'm not surprised to find them playing these games regarding an Arbitration case - I believe blocks were handed out the last time they did this stuff in arbitration. Regarding a clerk deleting it, I admit it is entirely possible, I'm sure if they complain and misrepresent it enough then they might be able to find one they can manipulate into doing their biding. TheGoodLocust (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am an Arbitration Clerk and I do not find it appropriate. A number of people have brought attention to this matter and I think it would be unwise on your behalf to ignore advice. My note was to give you the chance to refactor it yourself. If you decide not to, then I will remove it. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how many clerks there are, but I'd imagine that the others who've seen it over the 4-5 days it has been up have no problem with it, but perhaps they were not targeted for "persuasion." May I ask who has complained about it? And how those names compare to those involved in the dispute (e.g. Hipocrite, Vsmith, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, etc, etc)? If you've followed the probation then you'll notice they are very prolific at filing complaints, even against other administrators, in order to further their goals. TheGoodLocust (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no secret emailing as the issue was brought up on the Clerks' Noticeboard which I just spotted. Clerks do their utmost to ensure the smooth running of cases but we cannot guarantee that we are available 24/7. I myself just noticed it and had I done so earlier I would have brought up the issue with you earlier. I cannot speak for the availability of every active clerk but it should be noted that it was a long weekend in the US and UK which may have contributed to fewer eyes being on the cases and the noticeboard. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh it was NuclearWarfare? I should've guessed. You said a "number of people" have brought attention to the matter, and so I guess you just meant Jenochman and NuclearWarfare whose opinions on the subject are widely known. TheGoodLocust (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP breach on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Per WP:BLP please do not compare people's views with those of the KKK etc. as you did at & . Reading WP:SOAPBOX might be a good idea, article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for sounding off about politics. Misarxist (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

She belongs to an extremist party. If you are ignorant about them then look it up. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust -- Your bandying of words like "Nazi" and "KKK" is neither civil nor constructive. If an editor calls you on this it might be better if you didn't suggest they are ignorant. RomaC (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Or people could try growing some thicker skins instead of some faux outrage. And everyone is ignorant on some subjects and I'd imagine the vast majority of the world is ignorant of the Balad party. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ratel/Unit 5

"but Ratel, a pro-AGW editor, was recently found to have been using a sockpuppet (Unit 5) to vote stack for a very long time" - I suggest you rewrite this for clarity. User: Unit 5 is old, but it was used exactly once, and very recently, to vote in anything. See . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I can see how that could be misread. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Discuss proposals, not content ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)