User talk:Vanished user oerjio4kdm3

Archiving - Being Part of the Solution

Like other users I have decided to pretend that archiving my talk page is a great burden to myself or to wikipedia, and so from here on out I will be blanking my talk page in an attempt to keep my past from catching up with me. After all, the most dangerous thing about wikipedia is that a person might one day be held responsible for their own actions and words, but we can all stop this from happening by blanking embarrassing pages so they won't come up in wikipedia searches. Cheers.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not welcome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

frivolous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice

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

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

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

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

Notification

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

re Stephan Schulz

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

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

RfC statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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

About that RfAr comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP breach on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Per WP:BLP please do not compare people's views with those of the KKK etc. as you did at [3] & [4]. Reading WP:SOAPBOX might be a good idea, article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for sounding off about politics. Misarxist (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ratel/Unit 5

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note

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

Okie dokie, I just felt I should respond in such a manner since so many of the proposals are making assumptions and statements about content that are inaccurate. I'll try to tone it down though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please also note my request at the end of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Note:_Connolley_has_violated_the_terms_one_of_his_probations_yet_again... BTW, do you prefer the no caps version of your userid (which is what it is) or the version with CamelCase (which is how you sign)? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted and changed. As for my username I think I made a mistake when signing up (I don't remember), but you (or anyone) can call me whatever you like since I really don't care - Fuckwit, Shit-for-Brains, ZombieRaper, whatever. Of course, maybe I'll change my mind later, alter my username to "God" or something and insist that anyone who refuses to address me in that manner is making a personal attack on me. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Evidence section, per the above

I should be grateful if you could change every use of the name Connolley to WMC, per Dr Connolley's repeated preference for such appellation. If you are not minded to do so yourself, I should be grateful if you would permit me to do so. If you refuse, or otherwise ignore this request, I would advise you that I will ask the clerk to ensure the change is made. Lastly, I would point out that this is not a request from a CC Probation "uninvolved admin" but one from another party to the ArbCom case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I wrote most of that a while ago, but hadn't gotten around to tidying it up and Amory said the time was running out. Feel free to make the changes. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff

This is a very, very minor point, but one of the diffs you used,[6] contains "#Global_warming_politics.2Fscience_balance" in the link which has the effect of directing the browser to bottom of the page. I think you want to use this diff.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure there are lots of problems with it due to its rough draft nature, but hopefully the evidence speaks for itself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

Did you see my message on the Evidence talk page? Please cut down your evidence within the next 15 hours. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been 16 hours since I posted the above, and you have not only been active but even edited the evidence page itself. As you are unwilling to as I asked I have done it for you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I told you I'd do it today - by the time I read your message, after sleep/hygiene/meals there really wasn't much time, I got a little sidetracked with a couple of things and then a family emergency required my attention. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser

Regarding this[8], suggest you post to WP:ANI. There's a checkuser ombudsman but I think that's for appealing privacy violations and the like. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that

I saw your comment on the Workshop talk page. I hope everything goes well with the surgery. Best wishes, JohnWBarber (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, he got out of surgery a while ago, and I found out why it took so long. They opened him up, replaced the aorta and mitral valve, closed him up, found a clot and then reopened him and replaced the mitral valve again, closed him up, found a leak, opened him up and then replaced his mitral valve a 3rd time. The doctor said it was one of the longest and worst heart surgeries he'd ever done in his 20 years. I guess he's going to have to be on IV antibiotics for 6 weeks or so to make sure the infection is fully cured. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

TGL, I hope things go well with the recovery. ATren (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I also saw your comment there, and I also want to give you my good wishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. He's being doing well and had some "hiccups" in the recovery process, but I imagine the worst is over - the recovery will be long though and I imagine he'll remain in CCU for a few weeks. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user oerjio4kdm3. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Early United States history

Sounds like a content dispute, and unrelated to climate change - I'm not sure why you brought this here. Weren't you accusing him of sockpuppetry too? Oh, and the first Federal election in the US was in 1788 - years after the Revolutionary War - it is a valid argument to make that the war between the colonies and Britain wasn't a "war between democracies." You can disagree with that, but I don't think you should go around making various accusations against Mark because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - he's a real nice guy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the climate change evidence page, so I thought I'd bring it over here. As for the federal elections part, even if you ignore the First and Second Continental Congresses, which I believe were appointed by duly democratically elected state legislatures, you have the Congress of the Confederation which met under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union under ten different incarnations. However, you are correct if you meant that the first national elections for the United States occurred in 1788/1789 for the executive branch (as well as the first direct election of the House of Representatives, I believe, though some of the delegations to the Congress of the Confederation may have been elected as well).

Sorry for the rather random interjection. I hope it didn't bother you. Best, NW (Talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't a bother. I was basically reiterating the argument that Mark used and I can definitely see his point of view. As for your thoughts, as you mention the members of the Continental Congresses were selected, not elected - and those non-elected individuals, despite who selected them were for all intents and purposes the national government. It is a rather fuzzy assertion to say the revolutionary war was between two democracies - especially when the head of the other government was a king. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

England still has a monarch as the head of state, and until the Seventeenth Amendment was passed in 1913 or thereabouts, the United States Senate was still appointed by state legislatures. Indeed, in federal elections today, Americans still technically elect members of the Electoral College and not the President and Vice-President of the United States. The judicial branches of government are also mostly appointed positions. Indeed, if you take a look at the signatures of the signers of the Articles of Confederation, you can see that they were acting on authority of their respective states. As each colony was more or less democratic at this point (lower house elected, upper house/governor appointed by King and/or legislature and probably run out by this time, run democratically on local levels for the most part), I think it is fair to label the United States as a whole a democracy pre-1789. The best solution might be to just take a look at a reliable source though. NW (Talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well yes they do, and while I believe the Queen technically has some impressive powers I don't think she can really use them in this day and age. And, for the reasons you mention (always thought the 17th amendment was such a tragedy), there is a good case to make that the US isn't a democracy in any traditional sense.

I suppose it really comes down to the difference between de jure and de facto democracies. For example, on one end we have the "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea, which does indeed hold elections - while the laws there say it is a democracy it is not in any real sense one. On the other hand, for the colonials you had the opposite, representation that was selected, but selected by elected representatives - it wasn't a de jure democracy but it was nearly a de facto one.

Okay, so I checked the article to see if the Korean War was listed (no surprise there) and the first line in the article says it is about wars between constitutional democracies - this would seem to tip the argument in Mark's favor. Also, until the Constitution was created, the United States wasn't really a country, it was a confederation of nation-states, and the governing body of that confederation was not elected. If you really want to include it in the article then the best case you can make is that the war was between Britain and its 13 democratic colonies - I think it is just better to leave civil wars out of it though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't care about the underlying dispute. I just like history :)

I think the matter boils down to what you consider a democracy. To me, "top level appointed, second level elected" would still count as a democracy (indeed, some of the Founding Fathers wanted this for the Presidency/Congress). Britain, with a strong and active Parliament, would also count as a democracy for me, even though it had a strong non-elected executive branch (King, not PM). The book 1776, by the respected historian David McCullough, devotes an entire chapter into the debates that occurred in Parliament after the King made a speech announcing more troops to war. Noted Parliamentarians of the day, such as Edmund Burke, gave speeches against it, and had enough MPs agreed with him, the King would not have been able to send troops to America; the British had learned their lesson from the days of Charles I and the Ship Tax.

As for the colonies, you are correct that there was no official national constitution until the last colony, Maryland, signed the Articles of Confederation in 1781. However, as the war effort was being directed by a unified duly appointed Congress acting in the name of all of the state legislatures, I think it is fair to say that during the first six years the American Revolution, a state of war existed between the constitutional monarchy and democracy of Great Britain and the republic and democracy of the 13, technically independent but very much bound to each other, states in America. NW (Talk) 21:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with such a definition is that it calls countries like NK democracies. Regarding the article specifically though I think it is the "constitutional" part that provides the most trouble for including the revolutionary war, not only wasn't there an overall constitution, but I'm relatively certain that the states didn't have constitutions at that point either. I suppose one could argue that they were "constitutional democracies" under the constitution (?) of the British Kingdom, but once they declared independence (after the war started) that argument doesn't seem to stand up.

There is no clear answer. Politics is not math (and likely adverse to it). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Most states converted their royal charters into state constitutions quite soon after the Declaration of Independence actually, and two of them simply took out all the references to King/Parliament and reaffirmed them. Great Britain did not have a formally written down constitution, and still does not to this day (instead, a number of important documents like the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689, and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 serve as the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom). NW (Talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dazzled, frazzled

Why am I picturing you in a black beret, a goatee, and a black shirt, while snapping your fingers? Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I hope not, if I was ever pretentious enough to wear a beret or ponytail then I'd probably contemplate suicide! I might be pretentious enough to wear a kilt, but only because I like showing off my junk. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse me while I bleach my eyes. Now, this is probably more your style... :-) Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, the French obsession with Jerry Lewis is pathological. I suspect it the genetic result of slaughtering the aristocracy, those smart enough to work for the aristocracy, and Napoleon marching off the best and brightest to freeze to death in Russia. Fitting that the Nutty Professor (I used to be called the Professor when I was young) asked for an Alaskan Polar Bear Heater - his hair looked like it was smothered in oolichan grease.

And that has to be the worst bartender I've seen in a long time. That certainly wasn't two shots of vodka and didn't they have pourers back in the 60's? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder which bar actually serves an Alaskan Polar Bear Heater? Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk

I'd like to propose moving everything of our discussion after my first comment over to your talk page (if you don't object). It seems to have diverged from the main point of the thread otherwise. It would be fine to leave a link there, of course. Dragons flight (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll just hat it. I wasn't planning on responding any further. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Unban request

Hi TGL. I left a comment in the discussion section of your unban request at 12:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC). Could you please reply to it at your earliest convenience? Thank you, NW (Talk) 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw it and not to be disrespectful but I don't want to answer it. It just seems awfully McCarthyist to me and a distraction from the fundamental issue which is that the CC sanctions don't apply to user talk pages - especially considering that it was civil discourse on a page I was welcome at.

Also, several times I've mentioned articles that I was going to make and then other people got the jump on me and took the credit. Perhaps that sounds petty, but I would like to get the credit especially since the law seems to be applied based on the # of articles a person has created. If you like I'll discuss it with you privately if you promise not to disclose what articles I plan on making (I've forgotten some of them but I'm sure I'll remember as I get back to editing) or make them yourself. Alternatively you can just take my word that I'm not going to be a prick. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it very much if you could send me an email about the articles you plan to edit. I will not share the information without your permission. Thank you, NW (Talk) 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fun with math

You questioned my math in this section Not a big deal in the overall scheme of things, but as that page is already overwhelming, I thought I'd discuss on your page, see if we can reach an agreement, and then, if necessary, make a small comment on the CC Arb page.

First, (and this may be the whole issue), I'm assuming Scibaby is a single individual. Given the activity, maybe a bad assumption, but that was my assumption.

If my assumption is correct, I want to point out that 20 bad blocks and 80 good blocks sounds like 20%, but it equates to 20 good editors and (up to) 80 sockpuppets, which under my assumption is 20 good editors blocked compared to one sockpuppet blocked (multiple times.

I concede that there may be more than one person behind Scibaby. Perhaps it is unlikely that a single person could actually create hundreds of sockpuppets, but given that the editor is being blocked on behavioral grounds, I thought that implied it was a single person.

If it is many as five, then the math becomes 20 good editors blocked for 5 bad editors blocked (in 100 blocks). That still means blocking 4 good editors for every bad, except that it is worse than that. I don't know how many blocks there have been, butt he term hundreds has been used. Suppose it is three hundred. Then with 300 blocks there are 60 good editors blocked, but the Scibaby count doesn't go up, it is the same five, so now we have turned off 60 potential WP editors in the name of keeping five out of the place. My point is that this is a miserable ratio, and needs to be addressed.

Was your comment solely due to the assumption that Scibaby is more than one person, or did I miss some other point?--SPhilbrickT 13:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a communication failure on my end. I was responding to this sentence of yours:

"Just in case it gets missed, 100 good blocks and 20 bad blocks may sound like "merely" a 20% error rate, but it means a single editor has been correctly blocked 100 times, while 20 distinct individuals have been shut out of WP."

It sounded to me like there would be 120 total blocks from that description, 100 good and 20 bad. In this case the bad blocks would be 20/120 or about 16-17% (i.e. not 20%). Perhaps this was a typo on your part or I misunderstood.

On the other note, I agree that the 20% error rate doesn't really factor that much more good editors are blocked than bad editors. In fact, I'd argue that the bad editors getting block would just get another proxy or something and continue editing while the good editors are more likely to be permanently driven off or blocked.

And yes, to answer your question I believe "Scibaby" is really multiple people, some probably socking from being blocked incorrectly as Scibaby. At a thread on WUWT about the arbitration case several people came forward and talked about how they've been instantly blocked or reverted. If that many people came out on a single (if highly trafficked) blog then it is only logical to assume there are many more out there who've been instantly blocked (likely as Scibaby). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey

Do you think it might be worth proposing a sanction for Scjessey for baiting, personal attacks and the like? I've got some diffs from the past 24 hours and some others going back a ways, but by itself it isn't enough, and I don't really have the time to look up a lot of them. If you have a few from between a day ago and a week ago, I think we may have something here. Even the PD talk page has some examples. I think we might have a real good opportunity to help ArbCom consider another editor here. Please tell me what you think and whether you can help. I'm asking a few editors, and if you could reply on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

When I find myself being attacked I defend myself

When I find myself being excessively attacked by a superficially civil editor because he has a minor disagreement with something I have done I will defend myself fairly and robustly (I am not talking about you here). When I find another editor being targetted in an unfair and excessive way I will defend them too. I hope that says it all and you at least understand where I am coming from. Polargeo (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary absence request

Thegoodlocust, would you agree to accepting a voluntary ArbCom sanction now, so that ArbCom will no longer have to vote on your remedy? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary absence? I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but I can tell you right now that unless the ArbCom outcome changes then I'm through with this place (like so many others before me). Maybe I'll come back in a few years and see if some of these people have the character to apologize, but such actions require a certain amount of courage, which seems to be in short supply. In any case, as I said on Lar's talk page, I'm happy to be a part of those that presented the evidence needed to come to a good decision, that was all I had in my power to do, and I'm sure my impending topic ban/block/whatever will eventually be a badge of honor. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you consider accepting this one now [9]. Change will begin with you. ArbCom may not have to vote if you accepted this. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Accept what? I've already been topic banned in the area for the past 6 months and the area didn't improve. Chasing me away from wikipedia for good only hurts them. They are going to do what they are going to do. It is out of my hands. If I wanted to I could've stooped to constantly emailing Arbs and going to their talk pages in order to subtly influence them, but I'm not that underhanded. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point about being banned and yet no improvement in the area. Guess I won't push you. Just wanted to bring it up. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI comment

Just to let you know, I quoted you at ANI on my appeal. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, it looks like the mass of the usual suspects have rushed in to create a faux consensus without regard to the facts. The talking point of "He is disagreeing with the author" was just too sweet for them to resist using it. People are gullible. Try not to get too upset over it though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your tireless support on the sourcing of Climate change alarmism and the subsequent ArbCom discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I like this one because it is similar to my astrological sign ;). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Jesus

Care to fill me in on this tidbit? I don't think it is appropriate for the arbcom case, but if you want to discuss it here, that's fine with me. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that it isn't appropriate for the ArbCom case since it has to do with Scjessey's actions in the climate change articles. In any case, here is a relevant discussion on the topic (ctrl+f "Jesus"). TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming I'm on a computer. Right now, I'm on an iPhone, and I can't search by keyword in Safari. Could you please take a break from attacking other editors like Doug and Shell, and just answer my question? I realize that composing personal attacks and tendentiously arguing on the arbcom case takes up most of your day, but I'm hoping you can fit me into your tight schedule since you aren't here to write or work on articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Iphone eh? What kind of IP address does that have? Anyway, I can wait until you are on your computer or you can just scroll down a bit to the conversation; until then I'll breathlessly wait and compose personal attacks and tendentious arguments. And really Viriditas, why are you still harping on me? I've already made it clear that you've driven me away from wikipedia for good. Do really want me gone now instead of waiting for the ArbCom case to come to a close? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Same IP as Scibaby, or so I've been told. You know perfectly well, that I've done nothing but encourage you to edit, and I've even asked you to help me with Amaranthus brownii and bring it to GA. You've refused every time. Stop blaming, and start living. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And I told you then that I'm only interested in entheogenic plants or plants in the pacific northwest (including Alaska to some extent). Try to see this from my point of view; you almost certainly disagree, but from my point of view this place appears to be run by agenda-driven editors who are incapable of moderating their views - I don't think I want to contribute to that at this time. Maybe in the future I'll cool off or wikipedia will improve, but I'm quite soured on the whole experience and will warn people of these problems in my real life. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh. If you only knew how funny that sounds. I've been here long enough to know that's Wikiholic speak for "I'll be back under another account name." It's the ones who protest the loudest and keep saying they are leaving that always end up staying. The ones who really leave, do it and make barely a fuss about it. Yeah, I've got you pegged. Welcome to the Hotel Wikipedia. :) Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that isn't me at all. I can get into things pretty deeply, but if I think it is unhealthy or I've had enough then I'll stop. Take "WoW" I played it for two months and then quit. I had fun and was very good at it, but there was no way I was going to get obsessed over it - I've very good at "letting go" when I want to. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You are too funny! When have you ever let go of anything here? Obama, Climategate, you hold these things tighter than your teddy bear! :) Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's funny because I did let go of the "Obama" article. I could post there now if I wanted to. I'm not sure if I ever edited the climategate article, certainly not much if I did - I do have a tendency to correct people who are amusingly wrong with their facts, but some people just refuse to learn things that conflict with their ideology. C'est la vie! TheGoodLocust (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, you're a good writer, and it's sad you don't write anything. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Who says I don't? ;) TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the only thing that could mean is that you are using an alternate account. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should characterize that interpretation as an overabundance of imagination or a complete lack of it. Oddly enough, I think it is actually a mixture of both. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You took that in stride. You must be in a good mood. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The lack of wikipedia activity gives me more time for physical rather than mental masturbation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You could always leave your basement and venture into the real world. Have you ever thought about that? : ) Your arm must be tired. Give it a break and try using your legs...to walk outside. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, deer season opens up this weekend and I just got a new shotgun that I need to practice with so I'll definitely be "roughing it" but hopefully not chafing it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent comments

A bit OTT, I'd say. I think this has run its course, but I'm asking you to cool it, please. Drama like this doesn't help anyone and distracts from the issues. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Doug, I have absolutely no respect for you. That isn't to say that you couldn't get it back but I doubt you want it or even have the capability of regaining it. IIRC I added some criticism to the world government article [10], and like the little activist admin that you are you reverted it several times even though I'd improved the article and soon after that (days?) you popped up on the CC enforcement board as an "uninvolved admin" for your first action in the area (AFAIK), which was to vote to extend my topic ban - a petty retaliatory action from a petty small man. People like you are the problem with wikipedia. You should've recused from that case just like you shouldn't be clerking in this case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24 hours due to your completely inappropriate comments on the Arbitration case. There are a myriad of ways to discuss an editor's behavior without resorting to personal attacks and other general incivility. Shell ^babelfish 15:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh you blocked me did you? Where were you when Scjessey called me dumb, a liar and said he wanted to use RAID on me on the PD talk page? No need to answer Shell, that was a rhetorical question - you've already made your ideology quite clear. It really is too bad that the only Arbs who've demonstrated one iota of common sense aren't participating on the case (ethical people tend to recuse while the unethical refuse to recuse). Basically, admins tend to come in two flavors (very few exceptions), activist or average - in a project like this being average simply doesn't cut it and this is especially true for arbs. Go go Planeteer. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Likely swamped under by the sheer volume of edits to the page, or off trying to write bits of the decision. If it had been pointed out to me, I certainly would have blocked for that as well. Your continued personal attacks here really aren't helping things - Doug, as a clerk, has to speak up when something is becoming problem - he absolutely didn't deserve your response here. This might be a good time to consider a bit of a break if things are getting to you this much. Shell ^babelfish 23:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries Shell, after this case I'm done with wikipedia for a very long time. I'll say goodbye to a few people, clean up my talk page and live a slightly less stressful and more productive life. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy

"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion."TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseless sock accusations.

Both you and Mark Nutley have insinuated I'm a sock. Kindly have a read at this article here. If you have evidence other than competence that I'm a sock, then submit it. Mark did and it went nowhere.[11]. If you don't have any evidence then kindly refrain from implying I'm someone's sock.

I reported the incident to arbcomm precisely because it wasn't an anonymous IP vandal. It was an IP that knew precisely about the arbcom case and the ongoing dispute and used a blackberry and open proxy to skirt around the 3RR rule (although given how contentious edits are in the area, I don't blame him/her for hiding behind a proxy to commit such a bold edit). I don't necessarily disagree with the edit, but I definitely disagree with deliberate evasion of the rules and refusing to discuss the issues.

By the way did you know that I also reported the ClueBot reversion on the Anthony Watts (blogger) article as a false positive and called it a good faith edit? [12]. Have some good faith please, good sir. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lighten up dude, I wasn't insinuating that you are a sock. I don't even know you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't sure what "obvious socks screwing around on ArbCom pages are" meant. Were you referring to the IP that recently vandalized the PD page instead? My apologies if so. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't want to get into too much trouble for no reason. As I said, anyone who reports the socks will waste their time (at best) or get sanctioned for reporting them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, enough.

I've stepped back because I've had my say in the CC case, but you are now deliberately trying to pick a fight on the PD talk page. Cut it out, or you will be blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I get annoyed because they are always whining directly or indirectly to admins/arbs and constantly asking (now that they can't do it themselves) to have other people's comments deleted or hatted. WMC linked to a blog and implied Tim Ball was falsifying his resume. That is a serious problem and a pattern with him. The flagrant meatpuppetry of that group is also a huge pattern. Are you telling me I can't propose a restriction on WMC's editing of user talk pages to stop that sort of behavior (e.g. implying someone is committing tax fraud, linking to his blog where he calls them insane, etc)? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep it dry, factual and no snideness like "Off-topic has always been a synonym for embarrassing to the AGW side." SirFozzie (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I do feel that way though, since it seems like off-topic things they put up remain on the page until/unless they are embarrassed. Snidiness is one of my reactions to perceived unfairness, but I'll try to work on it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned from CC case pages for 3 days

Evidently the recent requests for you to behave appropriately at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision were inadequate, so you are banned for 72 hours from editing the case pages of the Climate Change arbitration. If you violate this ban your account the ban will be reset and your account will be blocked for three days. Arbitration is unpleasant enough without you and William M. Connolley sniping at one another at every opportunity. AGK 00:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sniping? I was pointing out that the exact same thing he was making a stink about had already been refuted on his very own talk page. He quickly deletes everything on his talk page that he doesn't like and so it is clear that he was aware of the conversation. How is that sniping? TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comments here are confusing at best (it has nothing to do with that section). Thus, it's construed to be sniping. (I think.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 12:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it has nothing to do with the section. Rvlese was criticized on WMC's own talk page for identifying a "skeptic" as an "Awesome wikipedian" and giving them their own day. It was refuted on his talk page by Atren who showed that Rvlese had also done that for people closely aligned with WMC. Less than a month later WMC brings up that exact type of criticism to the PD board when he already knows that argument has no merit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Within fairly wide bounds, editors can remove what they please from their talk pages. It might be nettlesome at times if they do, but it's within policy, so needling someone about doing so can be taken as over the edge. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't needling him about it; I was providing context. My experience with this group is that they always have excuses for their behavior that don't make a lot of sense (e.g. watching obscure pages they've never edited to explain how they consistently show up together). In this case, I was attempting to intercept the expected excuse "I didn't see it" with the undeniable fact that he meticulously deletes all comments that he doesn't like. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the only hitch is, he can more or less hackle his talk page as he pleases, so it's taken as untowards to bring it up. You may not have been aware of that. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Given that the case is winding up, and TGL is mentioned in the case pages, is is absolutely necessary to ban him at this crucial time? The same goes for WMC, who is also mentioned in the case pages. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Stern warnings on their talk pages, yeah, ok, go for it, but I tend to think that banning them from the case pages may have been overwrought. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I detest the idea of treating the PD talk page like a sinking ship—pretty much gone and done, and so to be escaped from more than maintained in good order. Actually, that's a bad metaphor (who 'maintains' a sinking ship?), but you probably get what I mean: the case isn't a free-for-all just because we're in its later stages. And I think it's been well established that stern warnings regarding in-case conduct are ineffective, on this and almost all other arbitration cases. AGK 21:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think enough warnings were already there to be seen, a soft page ban for three days isn't that long. They still have their talk pages and lots of watchers if they have something to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If this was a bit earlier in the process, I'd understand blocking two participants named in the decision. But the clock is ticking, and removal of these two from the pages deprives them of a chance to speak in their own defense at a time when the voting seems to be picking up steam. I could see an eight hour ban so they can cool off. But three days just seems like too much. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that a "I was just trying to provide some relevant evidence that this issue has been discussed and dismissed earlier, but I see how it could be viewed as non-constructive, I'll make an effort to be more circumspect" might result in a time served ban. Having said that, I have no idea whether we are close to the end or not, as I haven't found a tea leaves reading guide.--SPhilbrickT 22:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression things were wrapping up, but I could easily be wrong about that. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We're hopefully at the pointy end of the case, but both WMC and TGL ought to have time to do any summing up that they wish there. Of course, if there's anything they think critically needs to be added to the page immediately, they should bring it to the clerks' attention who will assess it and post it on their behalf if necessary. The intent of the ban isn't to stop anyone from participating, the intent is to stop people from participating in a way not conducive to the quick and lasting resolution of the case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

"the quick and lasting resolution of the case" - herewith nominated for the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor or the British Comedy Awards, depending on nationality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Take note

Your urgent attention is requested.[13] Jehochman ^Talk 23:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your next edit should be to remove that, Thegoodlocust. This is the only warning you'll get. Risker (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I thought you guys would want to look into it if it was true. I was going off of what Minor4th told me. And where the hell were you guys when WMC implied Tim Ball was lying on his resume? [14] You people are quickly showing how ridiculous the double standard is. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? You do not understand that publicly alleging that an editor is actively involved in harassing another editor is not only a personal attack, it is one that would normally result in an extensive block. I strongly urge you to never make that mistake again. Risker (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I said was that it was my understanding that he was somehow involved. If memory serves then this is what Minor4th said on Wikipedia Review. I said if this was true then you guys should deal with him. You people should look into it instead of threatening people with blocks. But that's pretty much par for the course isn't it? You people go after the watchdogs with a vengeance and then act shocked when everything goes to shit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and this was the thread I was referring to on WR. Perhaps you can ask Minor4th or GregJackP about what happened (if you don't already know) instead of defending a guy whose stated goal is to trip people up so they can get banned on technicalities. Fucking incredible. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We are well aware of what happened here. I have no idea what that thread at WR talks about, as I am not a member of that forum, but having read threads there from time to time, I'd suggest that you not take anything on that forum as gospel, particularly when one or more of the parties have a personal stake in the discussion (just the same as any other forum, to be honest). This is the end of this discussion, and if you raise it again I will block you. Risker (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I obviously didn't take it as gospel. If I had then I wouldn't have used the qualifiers that I did. I just suggested that you guys look into it. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• William M. Connolley
• Polargeo
• Thegoodlocust
• Marknutley
• ChrisO
• Minor4th
• ATren
• Hipocrite
• Cla68
• GregJackP
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Verbal
• ZuluPapa5
• JohnWBarber
• FellGleaming

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey [15]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen [16]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It took far too long for such a flawed decision. Hopefully some good will come out of it. Keeping some of the worst offenders around and letting a few beg for voluntary restrictions so they can come back in 6 months is a huge mistake, but I suspect this was done because some ArbCom members want to ensure the global warming articles remain just as activist as they currently are. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FClimate_change

This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)