User talk:The Wordsmith

POUR UNE WIKIPÉDIA DURABLE

Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there. Please do not put a talkback template here.

It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 2 months and 21 days.

"testicular fortitude"

Can't say that mate its sexist. Otherwise suggest you ignore the side comments and continue to do whatever you judge right without worrying. And you are not "junior", you are amongst equals. --BozMo talk 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't intended to be sexist, just a phrase I remember hearing long ago that stuck with me. I'm sure there are female admins that display the same (ovarial fortitude, perhaps?). Also, in terms of experience I have less than most other admins. I do know that we don't have any sort of hierarchy, of course. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, welcome to the cabal... ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar.2C_NuclearWarfare.2C_The_Wordsmith.2C_Polargeo

I have noted in the above enforcement request that the admin-only results section is for results, not for threaded discussion. If you wish to enage in threaded discussion, you are directed to do so where the plebians are able to respond to you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

• News and notes: Backstage at the British Museum

• In the news: In the news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Essays

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Time to take a case?

Hi Wordsmith. Do you have time to take a case for the MedCom? Candidates with pending nominations are by convention allowed to take one case as a "trial run" for the time they could potentially spend formally mediating for real. In your case I'd like you to take a case not because you have to prove your worth but because we're a little backlogged at the moment (in terms of available mediators, not caseload). :-) Would you be able to take one on? It's a quite informal and low-key case; nothing too intense, I shouldn't think. AGK 22:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis 2, yes? If so, i'll take it. Is there any silly song-and-dance I need to do before commenting there? The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the case I'm referring to, yeah. There used to be some paperwork we had the parties fill out in order to ensure they agreed to have a non-Committee member take the case. I don't think we'll bother with it here, especially what with the low-key, amicable, and informal nature of the case. I guess that she's all yours. Best, AGK 00:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

My 2-week topic ban expires today, am I correct? Athenean (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your ban is now expired. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

The Register used in the following articles as a source.

• Criticism of Wikipedia

• CableHell used four times in one article

• Phorm Seventeen Times in one article

• National identity card (United Kingdom) Seems to me to be considered a reliable source when attributed, which in my edits it was. There are hundreds of such refs btw.

Steve McIntyre Used in the following articles as sources, please note he also passes wp:sps

• Hockey stick controversy

• Extremal principles in non-equilibrium thermodynamics

• Open Notebook Science

• Judith Curry Seems to be considered a reliable source and again he passes wp:sps

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. also passes wp:sps. I honestly do not see how any of these sources can be considered as breaking my previous sanction. All are fully reliable. All were attributed, i request you lift this new sanction or it will now be impossible for me to work on new content. For instance over the last few weeks i have created the following articles, all of which deal with climate change one way or another. Mike Hulme Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future Susan M. Gaines Carbon Dreams Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History How am i meant to create articles or work on content if i have to ask permission to use a ref every time? mark nutley (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will consider your appeal. If you have any admins or established editors willing to vouch for you, send them over here. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

2/0

Hi. Are you discounting 2/0's opinion on GSCC due to your belief he is no longer an "uninvolved" admin? "Yes" or "No," will do. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Short answer? No. Longer answer: I do consider him involved, but I still looked at and analyzed each and every opinion given in that enforcement request, even from the non-admins and involved admins. Where a handful of editors are allowed to filibuster or make irrelevant points, nothing will ever achieve consensus, so I took BOLD and decisive action, and did what I felt was the right thing. There wasn't consensus against a ban, either. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What has led you to believe 2/0 "edits the topic area?" If it turns out that you are mistaken, what about your behavior will you change in the future to prevent you from making errors of fact? If it turns out you are not mistaken, you will provide me with a 2010 diff of 2over0 "editing" in the topic area (as opposed to "adminstratoring"), on request, correct? I am concerned that you are making administative action based on off-wiki communication that is innacurate and misleading. Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

You'll have seen [1] I imagine. I request you give NW permission to release the other half (your half) of the IRC log William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hereby release my half of the logs under CC-BY-SA. NW has my fill permission to post them. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I came by to ask you if you logged that outcome (and Marknutley's) ? I can't find it in the log. I have to say that on numbers WMC's probably got a point about WMC's ban from that article. It was the right outcome, to be sure, but the consensus apparently isn't there. I think another stern warning is about all that one could hope for. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I logged both actions in the same edit, that edit is here. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, when you logged the sanction on the Singer article, you didn't specify whether it applied also to the article talk page or not. Believe me, if that is the case then it needs to be stated. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is not explicitly mentioned, then this it is not included for all intents and purposes. Cenarium (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the Talk page and found that WMC's edits to it weren't all that problematic, so the ban does not extend to the article talk page. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the tough call.

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For acting as a role model for other administrators by making important Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP a priority on Fred Singer. FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll second this. Notice that SV was forced to expand the article in her userspace because of the disruption. Look at what she was able to accomplish with it once the disruptive influence was removed. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

I hope you agree that in retrospect, your closure of the RFE against me did not reflect consensus. You will have seen various admins agreeing that is so, and even Lar, abvove. I think the best thing is for you to admit this and withdraw your closure, in order to spare us all yet more dramah.

I hope you will allow me to epxress my disappointment at the way you have "closed and run". You knew that close would be controversial, yet you did not stay around to answer questions. This is regrattable.

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would also note that I do not see the consensus, which I feel is required in a matter such as this. I would appreciate if you could comment on how you saw consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my close did not have consensus by vote tally, but consensus is not a vote. When I looked at the strength of arguments and weighed them carefully, I decided that the closure was the right thing to do. I could have also made the same close under BLP Special Enforcement, if I wanted, which would have given me complete leeway to do the right thing. In addition, several editors have pointed out that a consensus of admins is irrelevant, as the general sanction states in part "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." Thus, technically only one admin is needed.

As for the closing and running, some of us do have employment that requires us to work odd hours, and relationships that are more important than Wikipedia (in short, I had work and then it was date night, which had been on the books for a week). I am here now, and I will answer any questions.

As far as reverting my closure, I will make you an offer. I have been wrong before, and I have always been willing to reconsider my actions (See WP:BLPRFC2 for an example of this). Go through the evidence against you, or at least a representative sample (the diffs I posted with your ban notice will suffice. Explain to me how those edits are valid and not a violation of our policies. If you can make a convincing argument that you do edit within our content guidelines, then I will reduce or revoke the ban. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not negotiating with you; I'm suggesting that your close was in error and you take advice to revert it. If you're determined to go through all the pointless mess of an appeal, then let it be so. I'll give you not-much-longer to indicate any change of mind William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, please self-reflect on your editing in the Singer article. Do you feel you were right, why? Do you feel that you could have done better? Then say so. We take responsibility for our actions, learn lessons, and move on. This is especially true when our actions affect other human beings, which is why we have a BLP policy. Cla68 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

[2] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate greatly if you explained and discussed your actions at the RFE page, instead of being disrespectful to me on IRC. Cenarium (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry!!!

You are an admin, and thus you will always be wrong - even sometimes in the opinion of other admins (who of course are also wrong for opining you are wrong, in both fact and action)! It goes with the territory. CCPE, though, is really, really, hard to even begin to be considered as having the possibility of there being the potential of being not wrong. It's tough, because what appears to be simple isn't, and because the same players will be appearing on the bill over the coming days, weeks and months (or until the curtain is pulled down) all decisions need to be made with an eye to future requests and a mind to what has gone before. Also, the major issue with the Climate Change articles is that we want them to be edited by those very accounts that are brought up on Probation requests - just in compliance with policy. Believe me, this makes it almost impossible to be seen to be right. The point of all the above is that you may be more than a little dismayed to see me opposing your ban on WMC, but it is not anything personal - I think WMC should not edit the article but upon criteria more in relation to his recent editing of it, rather than historically - and I think you should really stay and help. If you stay long enough, two or three days would be my guess, you will likely have the opportunity to explain to me where I got it wrong. As I said, it goes with the territory. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your close, again

I'm struggling to understand your close. You said I find the diffs presented by SlimVirgin and others to be highly disturbing. The fact that they come from three consecutive years turns it into a pattern. In 2008, there was the Mars nonsense in the lede. In late 2009, diffs have been presented by ATren of WMC sourcing content to RealClimate, which is wrong on several different levels. SlimVirgin's diffs come from 2010. There appears to be general agrement that sanctions should be based on edits *since* the probation(Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests for enforcement#Sanctions.2C_especially bans_or blocks.2C should not_be based_on_edits made_before the beginning_of this_probation.3F although edits before then could be "taken into consideration" perhaps. Having looked at the diffs provided by SV of edits *after* the probation, I can see nothing very exciting, but you say "SlimVirgin's diffs come from 2010". Could you provide a few - perhaps 2-3 - diffs *since* the probation that you consider BLP-threatening; or if you can't find any that bad, the 2-3 edits since then that are the wors, or the most "highly distubing" as you put it? This should be an easy task, because they should be chosable from the few that SV has already supplied William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please could you come to the Enforcement request page, re WMC's appeal, and answer the concerns there. I have no problem with admin's being bold, but I do feel there is a requirement for such actions to be discussed promptly where there are questions over the rationale. Should there be no response within a reasonable time, then I am constrained to open a discussion with the purpose of overturning your close and substituting it for one that satisfies the consensus between the admins (which, of course, you would be welcome to join). I hope that this will not be necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • First things first, I unreservedly apologise for taking so long in notifying you of my actions - I think I edited every damn page involved except that of yours; that was remiss of me.
    I have overturned the ban imposed by you on William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) on editing Fred Singer, following my reading of consensus following WMC's appeal. Technically, Dr Connolley is correct regarding the application of BLP upon edits prior to the setting up of the Probation. I have re-opened the discussion regarding the appropriate manner of dealing with WMC's recent editing of the article, and you may wish to comment there. As I have been at pains to convey, please do not regard this as a criticism of your good faith efforts - it is simply a case of needing to be careful in applying the letter of policy since there are likely to be consequences in the future. I trust we shall see you again among the CCPE pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re my question - I too must apologise, because you did provide diffs on my talk page. I've examined the 3 that postdate the sanctions and find them unconvincing; we could discuss this if you like, but the matter may well now be moot William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you look at a "!vote" I made on your behalf

Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Straw Poll of uninvolved admins regarding consensus for action re WMC where I have noted your previous preferred option and included it in the poll. I have done this action because you have noted that other interests rightly take priority over editing WP, and you may not have time to place your option before the poll closes. If you wish to certify (by subbing my sig with yours) or change or remove the !vote, please do so promptly. Thanks LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)