User talk:The Wordsmith

WIKIPEDIA FOREVER

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, 3 months and 16 days.

Article tags sanction

As you are an uninvolved admin who commented in the uninvolved admin section of the Article tag sanction, I alert you to this.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation in Censorship

Dear sir, A user User:Kkm010 is continously censoring my well cited word on two of the articles namely:

- Suvendu Adhikari
and - All India Trinamool Congress .

I've inserted a controversy section in these two articles, as this political party has open links with banned maoist terrorists. My wrtiting was supported by news reports from some of the very reputed dailies of India such as:
[The Times of India report on AITC-Maoist Nexus]

[IndiaToday on AITC-MAOIST Nexus]
He is saying my edits are degrading the quality of that article. But I am writing a section only after doing research over it and relevant citations are their. Please help me in this. Thanks. -Basuupendra (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

• News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news

• Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher

• In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify

You wrote Per the outcome of a recent enforcement request against you, I hereby notify you that you are prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months this is clearly beyond your powers. As a minor token to demonstrate this, I've edited your comments on my talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

More specific with what? My block of WMC? WMC's sanction? My statement on WT:GS/CC/RE? Please be more specific about your request for specificity. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being somewhat WP:POINTy. Yes, please specify how you feel WMC has violated his sanction, and, at least in the log, give enough context so that the mythical "uninvolved editor" can understand what has happened. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The sanction was that he is not allowed to edit comments left by other people. He deliberately edited my comment informing him of this restriction (rather POINTy himself), and then posted on my talk page taunting me about it, and claiming the restriction was invalid. The restriction most certainly was valid, and he intentionally violated it in his attempt to prove a point. There was no valid BLP or other exemption, and no reason he couldn't have inserted his comment underneath mine rather than in the middle of it. He willfully violated the restriction when there was no valid reason to, so he was blocked for it. If this is enough of an explanation for you, I can make a note of it in the log. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst WMC was clearly acting with an immature attempt to provoke, and I support the block, I'd have taken it to somewhere else to be honest and asked another admin to take action. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  20:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change sanctions are clear that taking purely administrative action against a user does not make you involved. WMC and others have tried that strategy before, in an effort to disqualify anyone willing to take action. It doesn't work. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, but this was not, per se climate change related as the edit was to a post on his talk page, followed up by snark on yours. He POINTly had a go - at you. It's no big issue - I support the block - but frankly with WMC I'd have made it airtight as he'll lawyer around until one of his mates turns up to unblock for "time served" or some other such wikibollox. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think what Pedro is referring to is more along the lines of "don't block for incivility directed at yourself". In any case, I'm not sure it really matters. The block was probably unnecessary, a pair of rollbacks would have sufficed, but that's your call. NW (Talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How so? Please be more specific on how "a pair of rollbacks would have sufficed". Do you think sanctions should be blithely ignored by WMC and we just follow along behind cleaning up the messes made? That doesn't seem like a long term good strategy. Further, the block wasn't for incivility, it was for sanction violation followed up by provocative behavior in gloating about it. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacking the childish behavior here and at his talk page is a much simpler way to say "we aren't interested in your games" than acknowledging and furthering them their existence by blocking, IMO. NW (Talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How many times would you advise cleaning up the mess before you'd give up? What message does it send? How many messengers need to be shot before the message is delivered? Please carefully read what ATren says, just below. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One rollback, in this particular case. If WMC got the message then, then all is well. If he didn't, then that reflects so much more the worse on him. And yes, I am aware of the history here. NW (Talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

General comment: this editor has already earned two lengthy sanctions for this very same behavior. Rollback would have simply started a war, as it's clear that WMC was openly challenging the consensus -- a well-discussed consensus at that. And TWS is clearly uninvolved here. The block was entirely uncontroversial -- and necessary, because previous sanctions have obviously not worked. ATren (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with a handful of editors everything is controversial. That said, i'm pleasantly surprised by how little drama this has generated so far. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate change enforcement

I'll volunteer from the AN post if no one else stands up. I dislike controversial areas like that, so I'd appreciate it if you would keep an eye on any blocks I issue and whatnot. Also, as I said at AN, I won't be as active as I normally am for the next few months, probably. If you could get other volunteers, great; otherwise, I'll do it for the sake of trying to keep this sanction alive. I don't want another war on climate change just because we can't enforce the decision. —fetch·comms 22:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering. If you want, i'd be more than happy to keep an eye on you and help you get used to things. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi, The Wordsmith. I've put your block of WMC on ANI, in case you want to comment. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Action or opinion required

Hi. As the admin officially in charge of blocking me, and as someone who has recently edited the Bradley page, I'd like your opinion of this edit [2]. Is it permissible? Is it permissible for me to remove it? Or do I need to ask you to remove it? Your valuable opinion is sought William M. Connolley (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty clearly a disruptive troll. User now blocked. NW (Talk) 12:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. However, two problems remain: the editing of my comment is still there, and I'd like to remove it. And the question: can I? Who do I apply to for an answer to this question? When I wrote this I assumed that TW, as "Da Man", was the right one to ask. But now he has taken to editing CC articles (see next section) this becomes rather less clear. I could just do it, but then all those nice people will have hissy fit, which would presumably be Bad. Shall we have a nice big bureaucratic section of the RFE board - is that the best way to handle these trivial problems? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on WMC, you should know that reverting someone else editing your comment is acceptable. You must know that from all the times I've had to revert you for doing what this IP did. So quit the pointy ignorance and just revert it, K? ATren (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If he reverts without asking for clarification, he'll be taken to task. If he asks for clarification, he's being showing "pointy ignorance." Neat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Except it's puzzling that neither you nor WMC notice the obvious contradiction: this is someone else editing his comment, not him editing someone else's. His revert is not at all in conflict with sanctions or policy, and someone who is such an adherent to the letter of the law should obviously know that. Do you see the pointiness here, SB? Just a few days after he pointedly challenged TWS on a complex legalistic technicality involving a strict interpretation of the probation wording, he now will have us believe he can't tell the difference between reverting the IP and what he did 48 hours ago. It doesn't fly. Much more believable is that the editor who got away with pointy disruption 2 days ago is once again engaging in pointy disruption. But what the hell, why shouldn't he? He's gotten away with it for years, why stop now? Hopefully TWS has the good sense to ignore this provocation completely. ATren (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with reverting an edit of your own comments. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Another question

I notice you've been editing Bradley and now List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (and in particular at a time when case participants are being encouraged to step back from editing). Do you still regard yourself as an uninvolved admin? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I have made a handful of edits to CC pages, and fairly uncontroversial ones at that. U have not engaged in content disputes. If a dispute arises I will recuse from that case. I'm not involved in any significant way. I just saw some work to do and I did it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe this is "fairly uncontroversial" and not "significant"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't regard that as uncontroversial - it has started a minor edit war. I would like to hear TW answer your question, though William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i believe that it was fairly uncontroversial. Everybody else on the list that I saw had one quote, and this person had many. It disrupted the flow of the page. So, I regard it as a maintenance edit, just like tagging those two unreferenced BLPs WMC made as such. I'm sure every person on that list has made many statements about climate change, some of which contradict. That doesn't mean that we include everything everyone has ever said in the list page. If the inconsistency is notable, it can go on his bio. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Your editing has been clearly partisan; all of your edits have been either to question the qualifications of scientists adhering to the scientific consensus[3][4][5] or to sanitize material relating to a denialist.[6] You can no longer make a pretense of being "uninvolved" as an administrator. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging unreferenced BLPs as unreferenced BLPs is for the benefit of the encyclopedia, nothing else. Would you rather they not be tagged so that someone can maintain them? It tells the reader that the information in the article isn't backed up by reliable sources. It doesn't cast aspersions on the scientists' theories in any way. I can't question their qualifications, I don't even know what their qualifications are. Similarly, I don't know what their papers have said, as I haven't read any of them. I hadn't even heard of them before I saw the articles. To say that you know which way I lean on the CC debate from four maintenance edits is ridiculous, you have no idea where I stand on the science. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know or care where you stand on the science. Re-read my comment: your editing has been clearly partisan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I've opened a request for modification of the prior sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment you made at ANI in Sven70 ban discussion

There is an obvious need for a sanction in this case, but that doesn't mean a ban discussion is like a RFA; it's more formal as the community is as much of an appeal body as AC and we need to treat users with respect, even if you don't think they are respectful themselves. That is, you don't have the right or the privillege to make lightly of his disability or to be disrespectful to him. That he's also blocked and cannot respond is simply another reason not to act foolishly - even if that was not your intention. I thought you would have the good sense to resolve this without making things worse (and that's why I put my concern as lightly as possible), but your snarky response (Apparently the Internet is serious business. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)) concerns me. I don't know what is going on IRL for you, or whether it's a sleep issue, or whether you are deliberately being difficult, or whether it's burn-out, but it doesn't change the fact that there are some issues with your judgement lately and they need to be addressed sooner rather than later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the latter part of the comment. If I can't decide if something is appropriate or not, it probably isn't. I'll take your word for it at this point, and get some sleep now. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks + good night. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Irony

Is not your strong point. The comment you made about Sven70 and his disability was pretty dumb. As a sysop you hold a position of leadership around here. If you expect to be taken seriously you should conduct yourself in a manner befitting your office, 15:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty the Damned (talk • contribs)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes poll, Public policy classes, Payment schemes debate, and more

• In the news: Zionist editing courses, newspaper denies editing candidate, net neutrality

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Input please

I'd appreciate your input and feedback regarding my proposed proposed remedy/enforcement found here. Thanks. Minor4th 17:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why words matter

Somewhere in that whole mess of discussion at the CC RFE you asked why "skeptic" may be problematic (or something of the sort). That reminded me of a source, which I added[7] to the bottom of the section (it's all such a mess of micro-threading now that there's no way to figure out what's what. It's not a simple yes/no answer, but I do believe it sheds light on the overall discussion, and does so entirely independent of our little discussion. Guettarda (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That does help show that the entire academic debate is inconsistent with its word use. Sometimes they are used interchangeably, while other times it is pointed out that there are comparisons with Holocaust denial or even AIDS denialism. Given the serious BLP implications of that, and that sources specifically seem to describe him as a sceptic, I think that if we err it should be on the conservative side of this one, and call him a sceptic. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Honestly, I don't care what word people use, if it's explained properly. It should be clear to readers (especially those who have no clue what's going on) what an unusual word - or more importantly, a usual word used in an unusual way - means. And I don't think it's good enough to say "it's hypertext, let people click through". I don't think that "skeptic", "contrarian" or "denialist" is actually much use to a reader without explanation. The most useful term I've seen is actually "naysayer" (see here), but it hasn't caught on. "Contrarian" does seem to be gaining currency as a neutral alternative. But, when it comes down to it, the words are synonyms. Discussing the best word is a useful editorial debate. But instead, we have people saying "no, they don't mean the same thing". A year ago I wasn't sure if they were the same or different. I took the time to find out. I wish other people would spend more time trying to see what the experts say (and by that I mean experts on the debate, the social scientists and historians of science) rather just repeating what the side they agree with says.

Of course, I know I'm going to regret posting a link to the Bud Ward guideline because most people aren't going to read it. No - they're going to Control-F, find a word that fits what they are looking for, and use it as "proof" that they were right all along. Or someone will start arguing about whether it's a reliable source or not. Or... Oh well. Why do I even bother. Guettarda (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Case in point, below. Good thing I didn't see that before I replied, or I would have been too disheartened to even bother. Guettarda (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK then we have a environmental organizations defining denialism and who is a denialist, so let's take the next logical step and use oil-industry sources to define who is an alarmist. The Heritage Foundation has lots of material to use [8]. Guettarda, since you are pushing for denialist, would you like to do the alarmist edits too? ATren (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

<shakes head> I give up trying to communicate with you ATren. Guettarda (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I really mean it, I saw that article a few days ago and the difference is remarkable. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the research and referencing to 100% secondary sources was quite interesting. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

• News and notes: Most linked websites on Wikipedia, New York Wiki-Conference, and more

• In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities

• Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000

• Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?

• Technology report: Reusability of MediaWiki code, Google Summer of Code: Interwiki transclusion, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues

I really resent the way this editor works behind the scenes, on IRC, to denounce his opponents. Maybe my edit summaries were not the most polite, but look at these [9] [10] [11]. That's the problem with this IRC business, you get his version only, and I cannot defend myself. Please try to be a little more even handed, and don't believe everything this guy tells you on IRC. On another note, if you deem I have not been civil enough lately, I will work on that. Thanks. Athenean (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, here [12] I think you are mistaken. I didn't make any accusations. Athenean (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What is there to see in those difs? Btw it seems that I was right because users agreed with me [13]. Athenean if you want to comment on issues do so regarding peoples' edits not their personalities. Sulmues made a sourced edit but you reverted and said "only an Albanian nationalist would do that". If you think that an edit is disruptive say that but you don't have to resort to behaviors like the one in Stratioti. Btw you would be topic banned today if I didn't partly propose to reduce your restrictions so how can you say that I'm working behind the scenes to denounce my opponents? Please Athenean this isn't a battlegroudn so most of us don't consider other users as our opponents and I have reported many users some of which are Albanians, which according to your classification they should be my allies. Wikipedia is a very important project so whenever a user knowingly does something that violates our policies I always report that user.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I regret to say that Zjathues has completely lost the meaning of wikipedia with his wp:gaming the system campaign of minisformation, using 'hidden irc tactics' as a last resort.Alexikoua (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua ease up on the personal accusations and the attribution of motives(last resort, hidden irc tactics?). --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news

• In the news: WikiLeaks and Wikipedia; Google–WP collaboration to translate health information

• Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky

• Dispatches: Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size

• WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force

• Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th

• Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more

• Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Late to the party

Re User:Marknutley/Climate change exaggeration move prot: you're a bit late to the party: all the disputes were over, and the thing safe in MN's space. All those edits happened while it was in mainspace William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. However, disputes in this area have a tendency to flare up again after people have forgotten about them, so I thought it likely that someone would try to move it back to mainspace before discussing it. I took measures to ensure that it wouldn't happen unless there was consensus to do so. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a response to the discussion at WMC's talk page

Hi, I'd very much like a reply to this post[14] which was a response to your post.[15] Your talk page is on my watchlist (as is mine and WMC's so feel free to post where ever you like). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, both "sides" are wrong and have pursued their opinions far too aggressively. In this topic area, nobody is 100% innocent in the shenanigans that have taken place. Yes, the pro-mainstream editors have often behaved worse than the skeptic side, but there are no editors that can honestly say that they have never done anything wrong in pursuing their goals. We know that WMC's side has done things that are very wrong, but so have their opponents. That's what I was trying to say. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fair and objective assessment. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats one way of discovering that you've done the wrong thing. I also note TW's polarisation of this into "sides", which is unhelpful William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is very helpful. The recurring meme is that there are no sides, but there are. Call them cabals, cadres, factions, sides, or whatever you like. I don't see evidence of off-wiki collaboration, but it is abundantly clear that there are two groups of editors that loosely align along ideological positions. You, Polargeo, SBHB, Stephen Schulz, Guettarda and KDP are some of those commonly considered to be part of GWCab, while AQFK, mark nutley, Minor4th, GregJackP and a few others are generally part of the opposing one. The same disputes happen across multiple pages, but argued by the same people holding the same positions. Saying that there are no sides is just perpetuating the myth, and that is what is truly unhelpful. Even though there probably isn't a cabal in the traditional EEML-style form, there is behaviour that is very much characteristic of factionalism on both sides. Pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)