User talk:NuclearWarfare

Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Hi

Hi, just leaving you courtesy message to alert you to the concerns I have regarding your delete decision that I raised on the climate change proposed decision page.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Worrying_and_not_good--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Two points: (1) I was appointed as a trainee clerk during the middle and have recused myself from acting in an official clerk capacity. In the past, I have posted to the clerks-l mailing list in the past about this case, but have recently decided that such a thing is not good practice and have decided to stop doing so for the future, except to bring up matters that might be overlooked (and then not post after that). I have not sent any emails to arbcom-l in relation to this case. (2) While you quote one part of policy, I tried to follow Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, as I always do when closing AFDs. NW (Talk) 00:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have recused yourself from the case and no longer email other ArbCom members on their email list. Do you email privately any ArbCom members about this case or do you email any of the people who are subject to the case? I read the deletion policy for admins and it does not support your deletion. There were no copy violations, no sockpuppetry, no libelous material, no original research etc etc. People who voted keep did refer to policy and guidelines when making their votes, you just basically said "I disagree and am discounting your vote, bang delete". This is a misuse of your admin tools. Engaging in devisive and partisan behaviour as an ArbCom clerk is sending a message to your fellow ArbCom members, even though you do not intend to do so is sending a message that you have extremely strong feelings on the topic area and thus that may influence how they vote. There was already one ArbCom member who stepped down from the case who would not reveal why which was a bit mysterious, I imagine people will be wondering if you had any effect. I don't want an answer but just giving examples of how your actions are going to lead to suspicion and lack of trust in the case. Furthermore, and probably most importantly, it makes a mockery of the whole case, there are several people being sanctioned for relatively moderate misconduct and it could be argued that you are behaving worse! People can cite your conduct and request that their sanctions are reduced or overturned. Can you not see my point? I am not trying to get one over on you and as you can see I said I do not want you sanctioned but I would like you to stop and think about what you are doing and cease. I am not just basing my concerns on this incident, I have seen other wikipedians who are involved in the case raising other concerns about your actions in the climate change arena.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the appropriate place to continue this discussion - there's a valid question of admin discretion that can be discussed productively. This conversation is taking an unfortunate turn towards being personal. That's not a promising sign. Guettarda (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, I am trying to not be personal; if it were personal I would be collecting diffs and reporting to AN/I or similar, I have no desire to cause NW harm, I just would like to resolve a few issues. I am not particularly interested in whether the article stays deleted or is restored, although if someone wants to start a WP:DRV discussion that is fine. I was not aware of it at the time I made the above post but it has since been brought up here that other users have felt he has misused (I assume in good faith and note I chose the word misuse not abuse) his admin tools in the same topic area, so WP:DRV is not the appropriate venue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are just that, discussions. Not votes. Which is why the name of the process was changed from "votes for deletion" (VFD). If it was simply a matter of counting votes Cydebot could do all the closes and we wouldn't need DRV. Exercising discretion in an AFD close isn't misuse of tools - it's appropriate use of tools, it's well within the community norms. It's entirely appropriate to disagree with an AFD close. It's entirely appropriate to seek the opinions of others through the appropriate venue (WP:DRV). It's inappropriate to frame this as somehow inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

NW: I came by to ask you to reconsider your close of this particular AFD. I wasn't aware til I dropped by here that this AFD had fallen afoul of an ongoing Arbcom case, but I do think that your close was against consensus and the common understanding of WP:PROF#7, which makes an explicit case for academics who get frequently quoted as experts of some kind in the popular press due to their academic credentials, which fits this particular subject to a T, and I found Guettarda's arguments unconvincing in this regard, as did, evidently, the overwhelming majority of commenters. I'm not sure I care enough to initiate a DRV, but this particular close raised an eyebrow, as it were. Cheers, Ray^Talk 02:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, NW. I'm not complaining about your deletion of the Tim Ball article, but I thought you were the right person to ask to explain the process to me. A link would suffice, or I can always ask Dave souza. The deletion was surprising to me since so many editors voiced our wish to keep it, with good, logical reasons, and there was no logical reason I could see to delete it. But I don't want to argue that point. WP deletes articles every day and can't be the repository of every single fact in the universe. The small gap left in the encyclopedia, though regrettable imho, is insignificant. I'm curious about the process, never having been involved in an AfD that ended this way. Is there a committee that reviews the input and votes? Does just one administrator make her own decision? Can a simple editor such as myself be privy to the name/s of the people or person who decide/s? Are cases randomly assigned? Or do admins choose the cases they wish to decide? Thanks for your work and best wishes. --Yopienso (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

See the link NW provided in his reply, above. Guettarda (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not email any arbitrators for case related reasons. You seem to be glorifying the role of the Arbitration clerks a bit much; let me assure you that we have no impact on the decision whatsoever, or at least no more so than we would as regular editors. NW (Talk) 01:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration question

A central component in arbitration is interaction with Arbs and other parties - I and others may have questions for the Arbs, or the Arbs may have questions for us. The case bar at the top of the case's pages lists four talk pages:

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Which page is used for asking Arbs questions or requests for clarification? Is the main case page talk page also the main talk page for the case? Would it make sense to merge/redirect all minor talk pages to the main talk page? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In practice (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change for example), the discussion moves along from evidence to workshop to proposed decision as the case progresses, and each talk page is used during each phase of the arbitration. The main talk page should probably be used after the case concludes. I am not entirely positive on which one would be the best approach, but I think that at this point, a post on evidence talk, with an email to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if no one responds within a day or so, would be the best move. I'll double check with the other case clerk though, and ask him to post here. NW (Talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. "Fragmented conversations hurt my brain" too, and I'm wondering if it would work to have a centralized discussion page for Arb cases. I suppose the main page could work for this purpose... -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NW pretty much sums up the use of talkpages, i.e. there is a talkpage for each stage of arbitration. The main case page and talkpage don't get used once the case has opened, and once it has closed, if things are unclear, you should start a Request for clarification or a Request for amendment, as appropriate. Probably best if you give us an example of what question you want to ask, and we can point you to the most appropriate location: we're after all here to help. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well recall that "fragmented conversations hurt my brain," just as they do NW's, and this applies to Arbcom and its cases just as much as anywhere. Having a centralized place for discussion just makes sense. Where discussions take place should not be dependent on what kind of questions I have. I suppose I could offer some samples of questions to you, whereby you could direct me to a proper place to post them, but why can't I just post them to a place where I know they will be read by Arbs? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Ball

Why did you delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball ? There was 10 votes to keep, and only 4 to delete. Please explain. Also, where would I file a complaint about you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.175.160 (talk)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Ball for NW's closing rationale. Wikipedia isn't like most companies, so "filing a complaint" is unlikely to get you far. If you still want to pursue it though, you can try WP:ANI. WP:DRV would be more productive. Shubinator (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What Shubinator said. NW (Talk) 15:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I will pursue it, and for a long time because in my firm opinion what you did was clearly biased and a horrific act. In your closing argument you can't even provide a valid reference as to what is considered a "notable" scientist. Timothy Ball was a professor at University of Winnipeg, has a Ph.D. degree in geography from the University of London, has numerous honors awards, has written numerous scientific papers. Besides, I didn't know one had to be a "notable" scientists to be on WikiPedia. I've seen countless highly questionably scientists on WikiPedia, but so what? It's called information. You can also add a "Criticism" suction to the page. If this is WikiPedia's new stance, then maybe wikipedia should be replaced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.175.160 (talk • contribs)

Truely, it was a horrific act. And I don't think you can claim that using the word in this way in any sense trivialises the word "horrific". Perhaps it could even be said that you made a "holocaust" of the Tim Ball page - only such apparently over-the-top statements can fully express the outrage that some feel William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Other notable climatologists include but are certainly not limited to Michael E. Mann, Roger A. Pielke, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, others can be found in Category:Climatologists (though likely not all of those are notable). Although all of these scientists have PhDs and are university professors, that alone would not make them notable. What does make the notable is that they stand out in some way from the rest of their peers, either through the general or specific notability guideline, which are meant to be used to indicate that someone is likely notable. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to cover everything or even provide information on something or someone that may have been mentioned in the note. Also, perhaps rethink your wording. There are very many "horrific" things that occur in the world today; hardly anything on Wikipedia is an example of one. NW (Talk) 03:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My complaint about NuclearWarfare

If you're confused by NuclearWarfare's viewpoints this letter will help you sort things out. It will give you a new mental map upon which to fix your own position so that you can better comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms. For starters, NuclearWarfare is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. NuclearWarfare will take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit long before he can convert me into one of his flunkies. Although his overt incendiarism has declined, a covert form still survives and may be an important factor in fueling a tendency and/or desire to carry out "preventive operations" (that means "targeted killings") against his rivals.

NuclearWarfare recently went through a totalitarianism phase in which he tried repeatedly to distort and trivialize the debate surrounding moral relativism. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of his has entirely passed. My evidence is that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we derail NuclearWarfare's laughable little schemes, or is it sufficient to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts? I have searched numerous sources for answers to that question. No two sources seem to agree on any given point except for one, that NuclearWarfare's oppressive slurs hurt others physically or emotionally. NuclearWarfare then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.

When I first heard about NuclearWarfare's bait-and-switch tactics, I dismissed them as merely illiberal. But when I later learned that he wants me to have an identity crisis, I realized that NuclearWarfare's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. People tell me that NuclearWarfare is a hypocrite who preaches morality and virtue while simultaneously stretching credulity beyond the breaking point. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. That's it for this letter. I hope that typing it was not a complete waste of energy. Unfortunately, I do realize that my words will probably trigger no useful response in the flabby synapses of NuclearWarfare's brain. I just felt obligated to go through the motions because I find much to disagree with in his stances.

This complaint was generated automatically by Scott Pakin's Complaint Generator (http://www.pakin.org/complaint/). Any resemblance to actual Wikipedia dialog patterns is coincidental, but somewhat ironic. MastCell ^Talk 15:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUSE

I see that you were a member of the House Wikiproject. Would you want to help bring the project back? thanks--Talktome^(Intelati) 17:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. NW (Talk) 03:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cross en.wiki and Commons matter

Hi. Since you're an admin both here and on Commons, you're in a position to review a situation which has developed. If you've got a bit of time (since it's a bit convoluted) I'd appreciate your input. This is the Theodore Roosevelt coat of arms dispute that you may have seen in passing on AN/I.

• [1] Original discussion on Talk:Theodore Roosevelt in which questions were raised about part of Xanderliptak's coat of arms, specifically whether the three small shields at the bottom were original research or not; the consensus of the discussion was that they were, and therefore the original image couldn't be used on en.wiki
  • [2] Xanderliptak's original image, from Commons, uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license
  • [3] Edits in which Xanderliptak attempts to retroactively change the upload license
  • [4] Xanderliptak's contribs on Commons. It appears to me (I've sampled a few of them) that all of the many edits he made today are his retroactively changing the upload license conditions of all of his images to require his approval of any alterations. AnonMoos reverted some to remove these changes, and Xanderliptak reverted back.

• [5] Discussion of original Roosevelt coat of arms on admin DrKiernan's talk page
  • [6] Comment from admin DrKiernan on Xanderliptak's talk page

• [7] AN/I complaint by Xanderliptak, closed as a content dispute for return to the article talk page
  • [8] Behavioral complaint on AN/I brought by Roux about Xanderliptak, which resulted in both being blocked for 24 hours

• [9] A bookplate used by Roosevelt in his life, which I uploaded to Commons as a possible replacement, under PD-old
  • [10] Edit history, showing Xanderliptak's attempts to delete this image using speedy deletion, inappropriate in this instance
  • [11] Commons deletion discussion: this was opened by me in response to Xanderliptak's attempt at speedy deletion; Xanderliptak argues that a bookplate made for TR in his lifetime (1858-1919) can't be determined to be PD as pre-1923

• [12] My alteration of Xanderliptak's original image, removing the OR embellishment but otherwise not disturbing the image, which I uploaded to Commons, and which was put into the Theodore Roosevelt article by DrKiernan
  • [13] Edit history, showing Xanderliptak's inappropriate attempts to delete this image via various means, including uploading his image over it

• Commons user talk page discussion:
  • [14] Me to Xanderliptak
  • [15] His response and continued discussion
  • [16] AnonMoos response to Xanderliptak's attempt to upload over my altered version

From my point of view, it certainly feels like Xanderliptak's attempted deletion of the bookplate and, especially, my altered image, is retaliatory and bordering on harrassment, although I'm also prepared to believe it's just bad case of ownership, but in either case it seems disruptive to me. Xanderliptak doesn't seem to fathom that by uploading his image he lost some measure of control over it, just as in the original discussion he never quite got why his embellishments to the coat of arms, which weren't prescribed in the written description in the reference he provided, could possibly be original research under Wikipedia policies.

I'd appreciate it if you could look into this. I'm prepared to be told I've done something wrong in all of this -- although at this moment I'm not sure what that would be -- I'd just like this back and forth to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In reading this over, I see I'm not quite clear about what I'd like you to look into as an admin on both projects -- it's not the content dispute, but Xanderliptak's behavior on Commons. The rest of it is just background necessary to understand how it arose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

...and to undo his retroactive license changes, which I've just found out about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not notified Xanderliptak about this posting, since I'm not sure you'll be taking this on. If you let me know that you're going to look into it, I'll notify him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I've sorted this out, for now at least. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, John, thanks, I hope you're right. And NW: thanks for considering it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for handling it John. NW (Talk) 18:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

If you're going to take action about the issue involving me at AN/I, I'd appreciate it if you could look at the complexities of this issue that have been described in the arbitration amendment thread. Even if I am part of the problem, I think it's very clear that the overarching issue plaguing these articles involves more than just me. Because of the specifics of this situation, sanctioning me without addressing the rest of the issue might make the whole issue worse.

If you don't want to bother reading the entire amendment thread, I'll try to summarize what I consider the most important points from it:

• Occam was topic banned from these articles for edit warring, tag-teaming, and false claims of consensus. I have not engaged in any of these behaviors - and as far as I know, no one thinks I have. For most of the time I've been participating there, most of the other participating editors thought my contributions were useful. Since Occam was topic banned to prevent him from continuing to cause disruption, it's not clear that it would accomplish anything to extend the ban to someone who has been contributing constructively without causing disruption. This point was made by Tim Song, Vecrumba and Maunus.

• Although Occam and I share an IP address, WP:SHARE does not really indicate whether it applies only to observing policies, like 3RR, or to editing restrictions as well. This point was made by David.Kane, and was not addressed by the arbitrators. I also do not fit the definition of meatpuppet, since the majority of my edits are in a completely different topic area from Occam's involvement. [17]

• The editing environment on these articles has rapidly deteriorated since the end of the arbcom case. The most consistent problems are tag-teaming, obvious POV-pushing, and refusal to discuss content on the talk pages when reverting. Occam's statement has documented several examples of this. [18] Although admins have in some cases agreed these things are problems, nothing has been done about it even though discretionary sanctions are authorized. The overall effect this behavior has had is to drive off almost all of the editors who don't agree with the viewpoints of the users engaging in it. There are least six editors who used to be involved there, but have quit out of frustration because they couldn't tolerate the environment created by the dominant group. As this has happened, the editing environment has steadily grown more unbalanced and hostile.

This last issue is the most important one, and it's basically why I got involved here to begin with when I did. At that point I was one of the only editors left who seemed to care about doing anything about this problem. For the past week, Maunus has been the only other active editor left who cared about this, and he also quit the articles out of frustration less than a day ago. With both of us gone, I'm worried that we've reached the point where anyone who disagrees with the dominant group of editors will be driven away very quickly.

Since my main reason for getting involved here was to try and stop this problem from continuing to worsen, I would accept a topic ban if something can be done about the rest of the issue. But I feel very strongly that topic banning me without addressing any of the underlying problems would, in the long run, cause more harm than good both on the editing environment of the articles and the articles themselves. Alternatively, instead of simply topic banning me you could leave it up to arbcom to decide what to do, since presumably they would be examining the whole situation. I think that's the best option - several editors have commented in the AN/I thread that it sets a very bad precedent for an AN/I thread to override an issue currently under consideration from arbcom. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, a number of arbitrators had already informally decided on the amendment page that you should not be editing those articles, and therefore my action was just a formalization of that. You are still free to request sanction of those other editors at arbitration enforcement; at least then one decision or another will be made. I do not thing the best course of action is to lift the topic ban at this time, and would advise you to either make your case at WP:AN or WP:A/R/A. NW (Talk) 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)