Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:56, 2 July 2008

If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.

Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question.

The Holding Pen

Is empty!

Current

8.2 kiloyear event

Would you agree with re-naming the 8.2 kiloyear event to Misox oscillation, since this is the name given to this event by Heinrich Zoller in 1960 (see German article Misox-Schwankung)? —Bender235 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to Misox? Oh no. Its universally known as 8.2 kyr. Why change to an unknown name [1]? Who is Heinrich Zoller anyway? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Zoller was a Swiss botanist who first discovered (and named) the Misox and Piora oscillation. But you're probably right, the term Misox oscillation is not well known among English speaking scientists. I just felt uncomfortable with the fact that there are dozens of variations of that 8.2 kiloyear event name, like "8,200 year event", "8.2 ka event", "8,200 cal. BP event", "8,200 years cooling event", and so on. —Bender235 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I'm used to "8.2 kyr event". At least its descriptive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW ^talk 05:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly have a look; do send the URL. BW, over here we call it a "favour" :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, here is the link

Pretest webpage

If you have any question during pretest, please contact me.

Please finish it before 25 June. Thanks a lot. :)

JnW ^talk 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I had a go. The Java takes aaaaaaaaaaaagggeeeeeeeeeesssss to load, and the results didn't seem to be very interesting. The categories presented made little sense in many cases William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. It's really a problem for Java applet. Another questionnaire is near completed, and I think that would be more interesting. I will send the link to you, just as the pretest. Please help me the last time. Thank you. :)

JnW ^talk 12:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC) JnW ^talk 12:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the questionnaire is completed. Link:

evaluation questionnaire

thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)

JnW ^talk 04:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/oren0 - What do you think of this? Oren0 hasn't been as prolific in causing problems on the global warming related articles as some of the other contrarians, but do you think he's trustworthy enough to be an admin? I do find it a bit galling that he's using my reluctance to continue to track down Scibaby as a reason to request it. Raul654 (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a think and review contribs William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you

I am sure that you place very little weight on my personal opinions, but I am trying to be better about giving positive feedback when I believe that it is warranted. I finally had a chance to read Lawrence Solomon's talk page and I noticed your contributions there.

I would just like to say that I think you showed an admirable level of objectivity in this case given his publications which mention you by name. I admit that I was surprised by this and for that I owe you an apology, so here it is. --GoRight (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you. I do try, even if it may not always be obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

laffeaux

Apparently now if you post on G33's talk page and he doesn't like you, it counts as trolling. Never mind the hypocrisy of claiming to be anti-censorship while hiding the opinions of those he dislikes... Jtrainor (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G33 is thrashing around; ignore him William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't! It's like watching a train wreck in progress-- you know it's horrible, but you can't look away. Jtrainor (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Perhaps that explains the incredible sloooowness of the arbcomm - do you think they are drawing it out to provide spectator sport? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More likely they're busy with the whole Cla thing, which is really more important. Jtrainor (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bit about Singer believing in martians

Given the public and private discussions that have occurred related to this reference:

"More on the Moons of Mars". Singer, S. F., Astronautics, February 1960. American Astronautical Society. Page 16

I assume that you have some way that it can be verified? More importantly, there is some reasonable way that Wikipedia readers can verify it? --GoRight (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about checking with your local library? There is no requirement that sources must be online. In fact that is pretty much impossible with books, and older material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is available in some libraries. A while back, someone dug it out and send me a scanned copy. Ask your local library for interlibrary loan, or, unless you think I would fake it, let me know where to mail the PDF. The file is around 1 MB. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That someone would be me -- I got it thought the interlibrary loan, courtesy of Kansas State University's library. Raul654 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just didn't want to out you, especially now that we have secret trials. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's your question answered. It is, when you think about it, an odd question, though people often ask similar; indeed I've seen it asserted that a mere paper reference is not as good as a website. Obviously, the reverse is true.

I appreciate all of your responses. I had added this item to WP:BLPN before I saw KDP's pointer to the talk page. My apologies. --GoRight (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secret trials considered harmful [Well, you might hope so]

[Hmmm, so this is all a bit weird. Current theory is that FT2 has run off the rails, not all of arbcomm. Presumably it will all become clear in the morning William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)][reply]

The secret trials stuff is disturbing. I'm going to have a look before saying more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've read the evidence: general impression is that this is revenge by DHMO's friends for his RFA failure. Why? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've read the judgement. And it seems to me that arbcomm has run itself off the rails. It would seem that they've got themselves infected by the bad blood from DHMO's RFA. So:

Given the sanctions, which are more humiliating that restrictive, the case was clearly non-urgent.
There is a good deal of interpretation and selective quoting in the evidence. I don't see any eveidence that OM was given any opportunity to respond, and that is bad (looking at OM's page, I think this response [2] from ~~arbcomm~~ [FT2] is revealing: when asked directly if OM was given the chance to respond, the reply is weaselly).
I'm missing the result of the user RFC that obviously the arbcomm insisted on being gone through first. Could someone point me to it?
Could all these people please get back to the job of deciding the cases validly put before them, most obviously the G33 and SV/etc ones

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever the actual substance of the complaint: I'm deeply concerned about ArbCom (or unspecified parts of it) trawling through a years worth of contributions, selectively quoting parts that support a certain point of view, assemble all this into a large document, and without ~~further~~ input from the user in question or from the community issue an edict from above. And for good measure they (?) declare a priori that an appeal is possible, but will be moot. Well, maybe it's acceptable because, as we all know, the committee is infallible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, my prior opinion was that arbcomm is generally slow but usually got the right answer. In this case, I'm doubtful. BTW, I'm almost sure I had a run-in with OM once. Can anyone remember when/where? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have not yet noticed: This seems to be deeper. [3]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy @#%$! I was wondering how all of them took leave of their senses at once. R. Baley (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!?! That looks bad William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some sort of hallucination?????? WTF??? BTW, you did run into me, because you blocked someone in a manner that I felt unfair. When I found out you are/were one of the "good guys" on global warming, I had mixed feelings. Now, I feel safe that you're watching over the article, especially since Raymond Arritt is gone.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole notion of "good guys" and "bad guys" is a seriously poisonous and harmful way of seeing fellow contributors. It encourages the worst excesses and does not lend itself to reaching consensus with the dark side/evil ones/whatever. Orderinchaos 16:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think that the people reverting vandalism might be considered "good", and the vandals "bad". Perhaps thats a bit too old-school, and you prefer a more nuanced approach? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking William's interpretation of good and bad editors. However, I consider NPOV vandals to be vandals too. Yes there is a nuance to all of this, and that's the problem. It's difficult.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So whats going on?

Most discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters, it seems.

Presumably someone will be along to sort out this car crash at some point. In the meantime I've been trying to see whats going on, and I've found...

As we know, KL has repudiated FT2's postings [4]. But [5] rather suggests that secret proceedings were indeed going on.
tB has "temporarily" blanked the page [6], which is nice, though not as good as "permanently"
Jimbo has weighed in, saying basically "I haven't got a clue whats going on" [7]. Later updated to the Arbitration Committee itself has done absolutely nothing here [8], which does rather suggest FT2 acting alone in acting, though doesn't address discussions.
CM is cryptic [9] turns on the interpretation of "formal" in "formal proceeding", a semantic point that is not vacuous
JPG says its miscommunication [10] and begs for patience [11] but confirms the secret case [12]
FN thanks us for our patience [13] as does Mv [14]
Jv appears to endorse FT2's version, adding the OM case to those recently closed [15] and posting the result to ANI [16]. How does Jv know this is the will of arbcomm? And interesting question, which I've just asked him, and which he is studiously ignoring.

Other arbs appear to be far too busy to deal with trivia of this type.

So its hard to know what *has* happened. But clearly its not just FT2 running amok, or the other arbs would say so. My best guess is that secret trials (discussions?) were indeed in progress and that they are too embarrassed to admit it; and that there is some frantic behind-the-scenes talking going on to try to get a story straight.

CM [17]. The statement is bizarre and is going to leave a lot of people (including me) unhappy. It looks like "it was a regrettable miscommunication, please don't ask any more questions" is going to be the line.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC) & 20:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What stuns me is how any arbitrator thought that allegations of uncivil behavior (however true) needed to be urgently addressed in a blatantly out-of-process manner while a case of full-bore socking by a repeat offender, resulting in high-profile articles being locked for weeks, was allowed to languish. Hopefully the committee realizes they cannot put the business of Arbitration on hold to focus solely on this drama, and will continue the voting. - Merzbow (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, still baffled by that one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I won't re-revert, but I think the wording of the notice needs work - it's not even grammatically correct, and risks being seen as pointy (though I don't believe that was the intent). Orderinchaos 16:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar is below noise level at this point. The purpose of the notice is to alert people to the uncertainty as to the pages authority. I think its important to have something there, feel free to fiddle the wording if you like. I'm going to point out its existence to CM, who though cryptic is at least talking William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed the wording to something I think should work - feel free to tweak as appropriate. Orderinchaos 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoRight's block

What's your opinion of this? He was blocked for "harassing" you and he said that if you approve of the block he'll stop objecting. It'd be nice if you'd comment over there to help diffuse the situation (if you think it's justified) or request that he be unblocked (if you disagree, he was supposedly harassing you after all). Oren0 (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, are we all suffering a fit of collective madness? My opinion is that GR's edit cited by RB is clearly a violation of NPA, and had anyone made that edit about any other editor-in-good-standing, and had it come to my attention, I would have blocked them for that reason; but it all shades into something that could be called harassement from the outside. If it were me blocking, I would offer to lift the block conditional on removing the offending comment and refraiming from similar in future William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view is that GoRight has been dancing around the NPA policy for about a week now. He was clearly warned, and a 24 hour break is not that much. Hopefully it will be all that is needed for the message to sink in (but I'm not optimistic in this regard). R. Baley (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, I wasn't taking either side on the block issue. I just thought it might make everyone's lives easier if you made your opinion on the matter known. Oren0 (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that people realize that you were merely conveying my request, per [18], and nothing more. --GoRight (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to community ban him from all GW topics. Because it's either that, or let him keep going with his current behavior and earn himself an indef block. Raul654 (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, after reviewing the second part of this edit, [19], I agree that I was out of line. I offer my sincerest apologies for having made it. R. Baley has already reverted the comment. --GoRight (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; accepted William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of harassment, I would like to know if you sincerely feel as though I have been singling you out or harassing you in some fashion. Could you please let me know if this is the case? --GoRight (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that, I've said what I want to say above. I'd also urge you to pay attention to what Raul said William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as you wish.

Just for the record, it is not my intent to harass you. It is just that the LS stuff is my current focus.

My only purpose in my support of the LS material is to extract the key points that he asserts, sans the personal aspects as much as possible, included as what I consider to be fair criticism mostly of the environment here as opposed to you personally. Unfortunately you were the one he homed in on, presumably because of your prominence on the GW pages. I certainly don't think that the content here is only the work of you and a few others, but you have to agree that you, and KDP, and Steven tend to be in the middle of a lot of disputes on a huge set of GW pages ... rightly or wrongly ... and that the minority is going to see things as LS describes them. Being in that minority perhaps that is why I resonate with the key points about the environment here so much (in general, not you specifically). --GoRight (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up to now, the issue of whether LS's crit is fair or not hasn't arisen. Thats part of the great weakness of wiki sourcing, of course. I believe his crit to be twaddle. Which bit of it did you think made sense? For the avoidance of doubt, you may insert any direct LS quotes here with no fear of accusations of PA William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Activation of view-deleted-pages

Hi William. I have removed your commentary at the top of this page. As relevant a notice as this may be, it likely belongs on the talk page, as the main page should not host remarks by users. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back in a notice (with diff from yesterday) to indicate the ArbCom is still working out what their decisions are. . .R. Baley (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page should very definitely have a note on it. It purports to be from Arbcomm, but whether it really is so, is in doubt. People need to know that when they read the page, not just if they happen to read the talk too. That seems very obvious to me. Whats worse, arbs are aware of this problem and are failing to clarify. What I take from that is that they really don't know what the situation is, which makes all the "don't worry, its just miscommunication" stuff less plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it (30-15, seeing Wimbledon is on). But only because Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements now has an update explaining (in outline) how we currently intend to proceed. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think a note is necessarily a bad idea, but commentary from individuals on a fully protected page should not really be a way of making such a note. The current note seems fine to me. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the current note seems entirely unclear to me. In particular, I cannot figure out what "a number of proposals are being mooted by the Arbitration Committee" is supposed to mean. I checked Leo, one of the most comprehensive online dictionaries, and it could not help me with "mooted". My intuitive interpretation would be "to make moot". But Charles note seems to indicate that they are very much not moot, but are being actively discussed. I also don't see any indication on this page that the OM case has been withdrawn - it's not mentioned in the explanatory note, but left standing very much as if it was still valid, with the link pointing to the blanked case page. Also, the (N1)-(N3) references point nowhere, and the end note by FT2 still looks like it's the last and final word on the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try wikipedia... see Moot court --BozMo talk 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That didn't help directly, but the embedded link to Wictionary did. I only was aware of the US meaning of "moot" (as in "of no consideration"), not the original one. Anyways, my impression is that this is a fairly specialized term that may not be the most appropriate or clearest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Concise Oxford: as a verb it is 'raise (question) for discussion'. This is querulous stuff, I think. There are new things there, sure. Details and updates are also promised. What William was asking about is answered clearly enough. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably about as clear as it needs to be, though there are important ambiguities ("following discussions" - where were these discussions? Presumably, on the arbcomm mailing list; but it remains unclear. Its also painfully obvious that the arbcomm isn't paying attention to these pages, as witness the header on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Appeals Review List - I would have hoped that someone who knew the mind of arbcomm would remove or update it. Arbcomm isn't doing well at the moment, and desperately needs to start paying attention William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the announcement was first made, before Kirill said anything, I sent an email applying for the Appeals Review List, today I received an email that my application had been forwarded to the arbcom mailing list, so it appears that status of that thing is still vague. Also do you mind if I convert your blue bar'd message boxes to a standardized box? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. As to the notice: please go ahead. I'll learn to do these things right one day :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global warming&oldid=222813131

Would you please explain your reasoning for removing "The Royal Society asserts that..." and "mean" from Global warming? I do not see why they are unhelpful to the point of requiring a revert. Saying that the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree is somewhat subjective, as there are many climatologists that do disagree. Mean global temperature makes more sense than simply global temperature, as at a given time, there can be a great variation in temperature across the surface of the Earth. (For example, this week, there has been a 120°C difference in the highest and lowest temperatures.[20]) Whatever is the problem? --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 19:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've largely answered your own question: adding in RoySoc as you did is an effort to deny the OvMaj stuff. The mean bit is simply unnecessary William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano block

See this thread. Three hours seems short for his 4th block under the remedy (and the block should be logged, btw). Avruch 19:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its done now; I don't think there is any going back. I just saw the edit and blocked for incivility; I wasn't aware of the arbcomm sanctions. If I had been, I would probably have blocked for longer. Hopefully there won't be a next time, but if there is, I'll be aware William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least is was. Now its re-done, on the basis of further incivilty. However, I strongly urge you not to post further to his talk page for the time being, to avoid any appearence of provocation William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things. Giano's original comment at FT2's talk on Avruch was clearly uncivil. The most effective way to deal with it was removing it and stopping there unless he reinserts. A short block, while non-optimal to me was understandable, but could escalate (and it did and how we have more drama and 24-hr block.) But in any case, calling Avruch a stupid person was only a PA and not "harassment" as WMC puts in the log. On a side note, the way Avruch deals with that grandstanding at AE and calling for a longer block is an exact drama mongering that derailed his last RfA. Seeing his learning nothing does not help his chances at the next RfA which is without doubt in his thoughts. --Irpen 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block was for incivility. Harassment is just the boilerplate from the pull-down menu. And the bolierplate or OR not AND (I thought you were an admin. Don't you know this?). I disagree with re blocks vs removal: there is too much incivility around, it needs to be dealt with more forcefully than it is. I don't think G's PA was "only" anything. Calling for a longer block was not unreasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else is watching: I'm not intending to extend G's block any further no matter what he may say from this point. Anyone else wanting to do so may use their own judgement William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of commenting further to Giano. I made a not very clever joke about some of his conspiracy comments, and the result is all down to Giano. I didn't call for a longer block, I just asked if 3 hours was appropriate given the context. And if another RfA were in my thoughts, you can be sure that I would be keeping myself far away from this mess. Freedom from that yoke allows me to ask that Giano's remedy and the civility policy be applied to him like they would to anyone else - regardless of the ill-will it will engender for me. Avruch 20:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) good (b) you did, effectively, call for a longer block. Its not surprising. Lets not argue about that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain why you removed my comment here[21]? without benefit of a response? At the time I was writing it, you were off extending Giano's block for the second time because he had insulted you. That does not seem to be what is currently considered best practice, after the Tango arbitration. We aren't talking about Giano now, we are talking about you. Risker (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that, it was an accident of edit conflict. In fact, I *did* reply, check the history, but managed to delete both your comment and my reply. Restoring:

Ah William, William...Every admin knows that the normal reaction to a block is a bit of drama. In this case, another admin (i.e., me) was already counselling Giano on his use of descriptive language about other editors. Several of the edits that Avruch used in his WP:AE report were, unfortunately, quite correct, if sharply worded; the editors involved were ill-informed of something, involving other accounts, identified by Giano a couple of days ago, that required the resources of two checkusers, two bureaucrats and a couple of admins to straighten out and directly involved a non-Wikipedian living person whose professional reputation was being besmirched; it had just been resolved within a few minutes of the block. And one would think Thatcher himself would have said something to Giano if he was offended by Giano's comment to him. Avruch has seemed to take a special interest in Giano, and that always needs to be taken into consideration when determining a block. There was nobody seriously contesting your original block. Really, this was quite unnecessary. Risker (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What does There was nobody seriously contesting your original block or Thatcher have to do with this? And no, it is *not* reasonable to dismiss incivility if the person being attacked doesn't complain William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment to Thatcher was not uncivil, it was actually kind of funny, and I believe Thatcher took it that way too. These are two users who know each other well, they are allowed to have jokes between themselves. And as I point out, your subsequent blocks are out of order per the Tango case. If you felt further action was required, you certainly had the option of re-opening the WP:AE thread. Risker (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed G's comments were directed at Av. Had I thought that one was directed at T, I would have quoted [22] instead. Please don't try to defend G's incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not defending Giano at all. I am pointing out that you have wheel-warred in a way contrary to an Arbitration Committee ruling that every administrator should know by heart. There was absolutely NO reason for you to keep blocking like that; you should have been taking it to WP:AE or even WP:ANI. Please note the comments from Jehochman below, and those on Giano's talk page from other administrators. Risker (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im glad to hear that you're not defending G; be aware, though, that you are creating the perception that you are defneding him. I don't know any arbcomm rulings by heart, even the ones involving me. The unblocking of G initiated the WW, and I stand by my reblock. I also stand by my suggestion to take this to the ANI thread William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on user:GoRight

Your input at Wikipedia:Requests for Comments/GoRight would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you did that, its been so quiet around here recently :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano Block (2)

[nb: this section has suffered numerous edit conflicts. If your text is missing, please restore it and accept my apologies William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Do you think that the comment "Oh well, make it 48h then" and extending Giano's block to 48 hours is, given the context, appropriate language in terms of tone for an Administrator? (2) appropriate for you to extend the time given that you had just issued two earlier blocks and were obviously in dispute with Giano? (3) and was the language a breach of the very same WP:CIVIL you are stating you are upholding? Sarah777 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of incivility [23] and mine is very different [24] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the entire point about that silly sanction handed down by the arbs, isn't it? Who's definition of "incivility" are we supposed to be following here? Tex (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to follow mine, since S777's is incomprehensible to me, and I suspect to others as well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a definition! That's part of the point I'm making. None of us have a definition. Sarah777 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many things are hard to define exactly. But nonetheless can be recognised when seen. G's comments come clearly into the "incivil" category William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock Giano II immediately. Trust me, this is meant to help you, more than him. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can talk here if you like, but I think the appropriate place is ANI, where there is a new thread. Not that I think there is much to say; though the signs are that people will say it anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I could have said that more gracefully; apologies. The substance is the same though, I'm afraid. And the bit after the ";" is a general observation, and not directed at you William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted to Giano's talk a message along the same lines. Really, William, your resorting to such clear wheel warring shows that you need to step away. --Irpen 22:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. And... errrm... somehow, you've neglected to leave any warning concerning wheel warring on the other half of the wheels page. That seems odd to me. The natural end to wheel warring is to restore things to the pre-wheel state, which I've done. For the rest, I suggest ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re [25]. I disagree with (nearly) all of that. Once again, let me suggest that you take it to the ANI thread William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re [26], I could say "I told you so" if only I was not displeased by this course of events myself. --Irpen 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you still haven't posted anything to the other half of the wheel. Apparently this was a one-sided wheel war. Who would have thought it? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now sure how unblocking would be helpful. Geogre (without discussion) unblocked despite clearly having a COI (his name is all over the IRC case). On the other hand WMC, wasn't even aware that Giano was under arbcom sanction at the time (that's about as uninvolved as you can get) which is why Giano got the very short 3 hour block in the first place. R. Baley (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Oh and Geogre also unprotected the talk page (which another admin, not WMC, had protected). I don't know how involved previously MSBianz(sp?) was (if there was any prior involvement at all) R. Baley (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here, I've never actually interacted with Giano, but I saw he had been blocked and then his page protected, so I felt it appropriate to leave a note telling him how to request unblock, for the record, the protecting admin was MZMcBride (talk · contribs). And its MBisanz :) MBisanz ^talk 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on having the cojones to deal with Giano appropriately. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate block log reasons

Just picking up a minor point from the above (and trying to point the way to a better handling of things in future): "Harassment is just the boilerplate from the pull-down menu." Could you please consider not using boilerplate from the pull-down menu in future? Would you agree that writing what you are blocking for in freehand is better than picking a possibly incorrect option from a pull-down menu? Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errrrm... I assumed, and still assume, that the boilerplate is there for a good reason. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was quoting you from above: "The block was for incivility. Harassment is just the boilerplate from the pull-down menu. And the bolierplate or OR not AND...". What I'm trying to say is that there is no reason to use the pull-down menus, and that typing a freehand reason is better than trying to shoehorn a block into a reason, if you know what I mean. And I strongly disagree with the "or" block reasons. If anyone is going to take the time to block, they should at least have the courtesy to specify a specific reason and not leaving people wondering which one it was (I know the done thing is to go and explain immediately on the talk page, but still, the point is valid), but that is more a problem with the MediaWiki setup than you. What I was trying to point out is that the "Other/additional reason" box is there for a reason, for people to select "other" and type in a reason. Oh, and there is a reason why "incivility" is not one of the reasons provided in the pull-down menu. It's a tricky concept, civility. Have you seen the essays that have been written on it? Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I found an example of incivility at a DRV I found when perusing WP:AN: "Since you have trouble comprehending perfectly good written english, perhaps I should write it out with a few more spaces this time so you can read it a bit better: i t i s n a v e l g a z i n g a n d n o n - n o t a b l e." Some would call that incivil. Others would call it funny. Others would call it making a valid point in a sharp manner. All in the eye of the beholder. For what it is worth, I do think that Giano's comment crossed the line from incivility to a personal attack, but you then go on about incivility, when that is a more vague term. Anyway, that's enough for now. I'll get back to the DRV. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that there is no reason to use the pull-down menus - an odd thing to say. If you believe this, shouldn't you be contacting the developers and asking for the menus to be removed? Or do you mean, that its your personal opinion, even if you don't expect the majority to agree? As to incivility: yes of course: there are endless examples of ambiguity. But there are also all to many examples that are quite unambiguous. G's block was for the latter category William M. Connolley (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely when I said: "that is more a problem with the MediaWiki setup than you", that implied what you later said: "shouldn't you be contacting the developers and asking for the menus to be removed"? I think we are going round in circles here if you are going to repeat what I said back at me, with different wording. Yes, it is a personal opinion, but something I just haven't got round to starting a discussion on. Also, it should have been clear from what I said that my problem is with the ambiguity: "A or B" as a single option, instead of "A" or "B" as separate options. It should also have been clear from what I said that I meant: If the option you want is not in the pull-down menu, the freehand box should be used instead. If the option you want is there, but as part of an "or" pair, then specify in the "additional reason" box which of the "or" pair you mean. ie. Select "NPA or harassment", but then say "this block is for a NPA", making clear that it is not for harassment (in some people's eyes, this is a far more serious charge). I will note that of the pull-down options, this is the only one that is an "or" pair. I think I will start a discussion on getting this changed. I will try and remember to post a link back here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You *are* going round in circles; I won't; just consider me to have repeated the substance, if needed. But please post the link if you do start a discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice regarding ArbCom case

This is a courtesy notice that I have filed a request for Arbitration about the events of today, and all parties behavior, specifically the wheel-war that occurred.. You can post your statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wheelwar regarding User:Giano II. SirFozzie (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound sensible, but I'll take a look William M. Connolley (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few points. I think some people have already pointed you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango. Could you take the time to read through the principles laid out there? They may or may not apply, but it would be good if you could indicate whether you were aware of that case and its decision. The other point is what Sam Blacketer has said: "this entirely avoidable case would not have happened had the 'special enforcement' amendment passed". I'm going to post at the request, but I think pointing you towards that amendment might help as well. It got filed under the IRC case after the amendment stalled (there is quite a bit of history here). See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Proposed motions and voting. You might want to say something in relation to that when/if the case opens. Something that might not be clear from that is that the proposal there may have stalled when Giano refused to acknowledge it (see here). It took me a while to track that down, because it was in the page history for the brief time that the clarifications section was moved to its own page. It took me even longer to see that a clerk "fixed" things here (removing Giano's comment). Thus what was eventually filed ([27] and [28]) by another clerk did not include Giano's comment. Strange. I'll ask Daniel about that. It is possible that he was asked to make that "fix", either by Giano or the arbitrators. I would hope people don't make too much of Giano's comment, and focus instead on the fact that three arbitrators had supported the following: "The Committee shall name up to five administrators who, together with the sitting members of the Committee, shall act as special enforcers for this restriction. Only these special enforcers shall be authorized to determine whether a violation of the restriction has occurred, and to issue blocks if one has." Of course, you would have still been free to block outside the restriction, but it is arbitrary enforcement of the "civility" restriction that tends to cause drama. Carcharoth (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its too relevant, because the original block was totally outside the arbcomm sanctions, and the others could have been either way. I haven't had time to read that fully, but if the implication is that *only* selected admins were allowed to block G, that would seem rather weird to me. More useful would be if only selected were allowed to *unblock* William M. Connolley (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and given the Tango case, I agree: given that decision (which personally I disagree with, but hey it exists) the extension to 48h wasn't allowed, so I've gone back to 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 323: / Line 323: @@
 ::Just a few points. I think some people have already pointed you to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango]]. Could you take the time to read through the principles laid out there? They may or may not apply, but it would be good if you could indicate whether you were aware of that case and its decision. The other point is what Sam Blacketer has said: ''"this entirely avoidable case would not have happened had the 'special enforcement' amendment passed"''. I'm going to post at the request, but I think pointing you towards that amendment might help as well. It got filed under the IRC case after the amendment stalled (there is quite a bit of history here). See [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Proposed motions and voting]]. You might want to say something in relation to that when/if the case opens. Something that might not be clear from that is that the proposal there may have stalled when Giano refused to acknowledge it (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions&diff=prev&oldid=207152257 here]). It took me a while to track that down, because it was in the page history for the brief time that the clarifications section was moved to its own page. It took me even longer to see that a clerk "fixed" things [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=215032524 here] (removing Giano's comment). Thus what was eventually filed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=215240638&oldid=215240444] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC&diff=215240771&oldid=212571827]) by another clerk did not include Giano's comment. Strange. I'll ask Daniel about that. It is possible that he was asked to make that "fix", either by Giano or the arbitrators. I would hope people don't make too much of Giano's comment, and focus instead on the fact that three arbitrators had supported the following: ''"The Committee shall name up to five administrators who, together with the sitting members of the Committee, shall act as special enforcers for this restriction. Only these special enforcers shall be authorized to determine whether a violation of the restriction has occurred, and to issue blocks if one has."'' Of course, you would have still been free to block outside the restriction, but it is arbitrary enforcement of the "civility" restriction that tends to cause drama. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 10:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 ::: I don't think its too relevant, because the original block was totally outside the arbcomm sanctions, and the others could have been either way. I haven't had time to read that fully, but if the implication is that *only* selected admins were allowed to block G, that would seem rather weird to me. More useful would be if only selected were allowed to *unblock* [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
+::: Oh, and given the Tango case, I agree: given that decision (which personally I disagree with, but hey it exists) the extension to 48h wasn't allowed, so I've gone back to 24h [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)