Hello, JohnWBarber, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, great work on Norwalk related stuff. I recently created the Norwalk Wiki for everything that would not otherwise be notable enough for Wikipedia. Its brand new, so we need to get the word out about it. I invite your correspondence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do believe that there is serious canvassing-like issues here. Too many strange things happening by the same people. See my comments on Kevin's page. I forsee AN/I or arbcom sooner than later... But I will keep a lid on it if and until that happens. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hummm the translation line is also pretty in-you-face. I agree with exactly what you said, but I think we should both walk away for a bit. Best of luck to you. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|1=This is a shorter version of my original unblock request at User talk:Noroton. I'm posting it here because that may make it easier for an admin to unblock this account, the one I want unblocked. 24 hours after blocking, Versageek finally offered an explanation: Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. Versageek has simply contradicted what all editors are told is policy at the WP:CLEANSTART part of WP:SOCK. If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. Let's not contradict the clear language of the policy, particularly when the blocking editor doesn't think there was a bad intent (Versageek says of me I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap). The idea that "aggressive debat[ing]" is disruptive -- a blockable offense -- only applies if what I was doing either was uncivil (or worse) or if I made it much more difficult for the discussion at the Shankbone AfD or DRV to continue. In fact, my comments in both discussions were focused on the things that WP:TALK and WP:DELETE and the instructions on WP:DRV tell us we are supposed to be doing in discussions -- talking about policy and facts and (at DRV) whether or not the closing admin acted within policy and procedure. Either I have the right to a clean start or I don't. Versageek doesn't like the idea that I spoke at the AfD while people didn't know my prior conflict with Shankbone, and in a vague, abstract way there could be something wrong with that, although it isn't wrong in the letter or spirit of SOCK or any other policy. The problem he points to simply wasn't simultaneous with the Noroton account, which I'd stopped using by Oct. 5. Although Versageek didn't bring this up, I will: My using CountryDoctor and Reconsideration and JohnWBarber together could be interpreted as a violation of WP:SOCK, particularly the way that policy is now written. I've said elsewhere on my talk page that when I started using these alternate accounts, they were discouraged but not prohibited by SOCK policy, the language of which focused more on abusive use of alternate accounts (for instance, the lead then stated, While many reasons for using alternative accounts are acceptable, a number of uses for them are explicitly forbidden.[1]; from "Avoiding scrutiny" subsection: Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. [...] it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.[2] -- No one would have had a legitimate interest to make comparisons between any of my new accounts, ever, or between any of them and Noroton while I was using that account). It wasn't even prohibited for Reconsideration to comment in an RfC for a change in style policy at the time that account did so. Both the Reconsideration and JohnWBarber accounts participated in AfDs, which goes against policy as currently written. My bad, and I wouldn't do that again -- but let's not pretend that any harm was done. Anyone who scrutinizes the edits of Reconsideration would gain no insight into JohnWBarber or vice versa. Versageek is concerned about scrutiny involving the Noroton account, but once that account finally wound down its editing and resigned, it stopped being subject to WP:SOCK. The "scrutiny" that socking improperly avoids is supposed to be "justified scrutiny" (in the words of older versions of WP:SOCK) -- scrutiny of misbehavior of various sorts. Unjustified scrutiny -- scrutiny in order to continually bring up past actions of an editor even though doing so only clouds the issue -- is what CLEANSTART is supposed to help an editor avoid. The purpose of using separate accounts was originally to avoid having editors who were antagonistic to me start stalking me in areas separate from politics, and I used separate accounts to prevent the kind of unjustified scrutiny that would lead to those antagonistic editors following me. After a while, I became unconcerned about that, but it was why I did it and initially it was not a violation of policy to do it for that reason. I also found I became more annoyed when I logged in as Noroton than when I logged into the other accounts. I'd been planning on unifying the accounts eventually, but I'd hoped to do it silently. Since I knew I wasn't being disruptive with any of the accounts and was never deceptive, it was never a priority for me to unify them (and until recently, I didn't know how easily I could combine the long watchlists). If any admin had simply emailed me and told me I seemed to be violating WP:SOCK, I'd have looked into it and shuttered all but one account. I'll probably -- again-- exercise my right to WP:CLEANSTART at some future point. Since I didn't edit disruptively at all with JohnWBarber, at the DRV or anywhere else, there is no reason for anything other than dropping the block entirely, immediately. If a checkuser willing to work with me briefly will email me, I have a privacy concern related to this that a checkuser can handle, or I can contact one when I no longer have the block. At this point, I'd prefer simply to have the JohnWBarber account.}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
This one, User:Noroton, User:CountryDoctor, and two others. I can give information on those two by email to a checkuser. I have good reason to keep them private, and the checkuser should be able to confirm that there are reasons to keep them private and that they were both harmless in any practical sense, but I won't say any more about it and won't use them again (the checkuser can help me close them quietly). Can I email while blocked? Is there a checkuser who would look into it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of interest, the original blocking admin is also a checkuser. However, if you'd be happier discussing it with me, I'm also available. As an oversighter, I'm bound to confidentiality re. privacy issues - Alison❤21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. I trust and respect you, Allison, and I appreciate the offer, but I'll email Hersfold on this one. I'll need about an hour (making dinner). JohnWBarber (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it, and I don't really have privacy concerns about these accounts. These are the accounts: User:Picabu, User:Amg37 on Commons, which I used inadvertently to participate innocuously in an AfD (the short WP contributions page will show it). Also, User:Reconsideration2 is publicly linked with User:Reconsideration at the top of each user page. I used R2 for public computer terminals. I really am sick of all this. I did nothing worth blocking, what I did was either within policy when I did it or was obviously a minor violation of policy, wasn't done to harm either Wikipedia or any editor, did not in fact harm either and was never worth more than a message either asking me if I was doing something wrong or telling me to stop doing it. If I've missed a single thing in this explanation, just ask.
I started the Picabu account at a time when I thought I might be able to deny that I lived where my "Noroton" user name indicated I live, but I no longer care who knows about that. The Picabu account was for taking pictures, which are all (or almost all) from the area where I live. This is the list of all the contributions from the Picabu account: [3] This is the last of three links to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard when I asked for advice. I did want to avoid scrutiny of that request, but not of my own conduct -- it was a sensitive BLP matter and I didn't want some of the editors on the Obama page to post it without reliable sourcing (they later did and were reverted; later on, reliable sources reported it and I posted it myself). Before anyone responded, I crossed out the request. Last edit: [4] No harm was done. This was the state of the WP:SOCK page on that date: [5]
I started Amg37 when I started this account and Reconsideration and for the same reasons. It was used for uploading pictures from elsewhere on the Internet. That account voted in an Afd here: [6] That was on March 29. I voted "delete" along with four other people. There were no Keeps. That's the only edit I saw in the Wikipedia contributions, but here's the contributions page: [7] This is the version of the WP:SOCK page on that day -- it doesn't actually prohibit using an alternate account in a deletion discussion: [8] As I say below, it's been clearly prohibited by WP:SOCK to do this as of Oct. 3. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the diff [9] where WP:SOCK first forbid alternate accounts from editing deletion debates. It occurred October 3 So any AfD edits by socks before that date, 27 days ago, were not forbidden by WP:SOCK (bold italics added):
Old language:
Sock puppets might be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists. Though typically it is the weight of arguments that wins the day, having multiple sock puppets participate, whether arguing with each other or else supporting a common cause, can still cause considerable confusion, and is therefore prohibited. This includes voting multiple times in any election, using more than one account in discussions such as deletion debates,Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages, or engaging with two or more accounts in an edit war.
In addition to double-voting, sock puppets might be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.
New language that replaced it:
Creating an illusion of support
Alternate accounts must not used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists.
Editing project space
Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.
Try to see the forest through the trees. Hair splitting and wiki-lawyering about whether you actually violated the sockpuppetry policy is not going to move the unblock request forward. In any event, the very first sentence of that policy is: "The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using one account only." Since you have acknowledged seven accounts so far, we need to identify which ones you intend to keep as alternate accounts and which you are willing to abandon. Please indicate below what your intentions are regarding:
First, I already said, repeatedly, that JohnWBarber is the account I want to keep. See the last lines of the block request. That's why we're on this page instead of User talk:Noroton, where this began (perhaps you weren't aware of that). Second, I didn't deny that I in fact violated the policy, in fact, I've commented at the Noroton talk page on ways that Versageek didn't bring up but where I went wrong. I've been open and honest on this and admitted mistakes. I did violate the policy as it is now written, just in having the accounts. Now look at the policy as it was written when I set up the accounts in early November 2008 [10] and look for the underlying principles, not just the technical language. The spirit of a policy can usually be found in the nut graph and the lead section. The nut graph says The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block. [...] Multiple accounts are not for collusion, evasion, disruption, or other misuse. I didn't do any of that, ever. Look at the first line of the lead: A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. Later, it says, If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended but not required that s/he provide links between the accounts. I'm not going to say I was wrong not to follow the 2009 language of the policy in 2008 when I actually looked at it before setting up the accounts. You could say that I should have paid attention to the changes in the policy. That's a fair criticism. I'm guilty of not doing that! Is it worth continuing the block for that reason?
I looked into ways I might have violated WP:SOCK because, in fact, I'm concerned about violating the spirit of it with what I did. I concluded that I didn't do any of this to avoid legitimate scrutiny. If I'd continued voting in AfDs with two accounts, I'd have started to avoid the spirit. That I commented on a controversial matter with JohnWBarber instead of Reconsideration is a violation. It wasn't a violation that actually was done to avoid what's in the spirit of WP:SOCK because no practical harm was done or could have been done by using JWB instead of Recon. It was a technical violation done in good faith. (Nothing would be gained by looking at the edits of Reconsideration to gain insight into JWB comments in the Shankbone discussions.) It isn't wikilawyering to say that either. Are technical violations done in good faith worth continuing the block?
I've said I'll stick to one account. Do you have reason not to believe me?
As you can see, I have unblocked you. I'd like to clarify a few points though. Even if you did not intend to be deceptive, using multiple accounts is generally frowned upon. I completely understand your concern about the photographs of your neighborhood and not wanting to be personally identified, but the reasons the rest of the accounts were created is still a bit unclear. Many users feel that any undisclosed alternate account is an indication that a user has something to hide. You may not be aware that there have been several recent scandals involving well-established users and multiple accounts, and several administrators have been desysopped as a result, so this is kind of a "hot button" issue right now, which is part of the reason I wanted to insure we were on the same page about this before unblocking. The other reason is that I am fairly new to handling these types of requests, and as a result I may have asked you to jump through some hoops that weren't really necessary. I'm sorry if this seemed overly harsh, I was trying to be cautious, but making you repeat yourself was probably not needed. Anyway, I'm glad this is resolved and you can return to editing Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate that comment, and I understand that you wouldn't want to unblock and then see an editor do the same thing again. My initial reason, in November '08, was to avoid unwanted contact or even unwanted reactions from people I'd been in conflict with. Later, I found I had little to worry about regarding that, but by that time I found I enjoyed Wikipedia much better when I was editing under a name other than Noroton, I guess because that user name just brought up annoyances to me. Under the Nov. '08 policy language it didn't seem to matter what the reason was. Things have changed, I accept that. I don't need the accounts now. My conscience is free because I didn't do anything harmful. Thanks for the comment and for the unblock. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock-auto|1=69.120.113.253|2=|4=1629574}}
{{adminhelp}}
I don't have much experience with autoblock removal and I can't figure out how to get this guy unblocked. The toolserver says he's not blocked. Little help? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of. It would have been easier if the unblock request template had been posted properly, but enough was left intact to take care of it. Hersfold(t/a/c)23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
have a beerI could be wrong, but Hersfold may actually be referring to the original unblock, which got kind of mangled in the course of my accepting it. (Although as far as I can tell I followed the instructions as written it didn't seem to work quite right.) Have a cold one on me. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than arguing that policy DOES say something, you need to argue that policy SHOULD say something, to sway others to sustain or overturn. Because policy here, at this point in time, is not clear cut. No consensus BLP as delete sometimes passes muster and sometimes doesn't. I've argued that policy SHOULD favor deletion for BLPs, elsewhere, at length. And I will continue to close them that way. Because I don't always get overturned. This is one of the BLPs where deletion is the right outcome. [...] ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This was my response to that passage:
If the policy change is so "descriptive", why is it having so much trouble getting consensus at the Deletion policy talk page? Looks to me like it's getting more and more prescriptive, and edging closer to proscriptive[16]. Lar, if you fail to change policy, what should be done in the future with closing admins who deliberately violate WP:DEL as it stands? Would you object to warnings and blocks? JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
'You need to dial down the threats. DRV is intended to see if there is consensus that the close is endorsable or not, and if it is it sticks and if it isn't, it's overturned. A series of DRVs will shift policy, because policy in this area is not, and will never be, proscribing. If you think you can block an admin over a close made in good faith, you have another think coming. Keep up this sort of disruptive, argumentative badgering and you might find yourself blocked. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I responded here [11]. Part of an additional response that I originally posted at User talk:Noroton:
I meant to point out that he's arguing that policy needs to catch up to "practice", although the consensus for a policy change wasn't forming at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Default to delete for BLPs, and not being able to change the policy through consensus would seem to me to show that the kind of deleting he wants to do is both contrary to policy and without consensus. How can you go against policy when you don't have a consensus to do so? Since DRV is normally subject to the challenge of getting a consensus to overturn, doesn't a deliberate violation of the language of WP:DEL amount to gaming the system -- in fact, violating policy? He states, You need to dial down the threats.JohnWBarber (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, I think you miss the part about suddenly going to high-drama behavior in Lar's comment, and that you far too easily dismiss the history with Shankbone simply because he's gracious enough to disregard it. I'm surprised you don't see it, but make some effort to consider the effects on project related discussions if it was completely ok to use a brand new account in order to pursue the most contentious of project-related issues. You keep saying that you weren't disruptive in how you did it, and I'll even grant that maybe you weren't. That completely misses the point. If I saw you doing this as a CU, the fact is it would be downright negligent just to accept it, or even to take your word that you were not misleading anyone by your actions. It's too much! This is an AfD on someone that you know darned well is going to be the height of controversy, and where misbehavior on your part would have a huge potential to taint the entire decision. This in turn has a huge potential to cause additional problems down the road. In fact, if this had not been brought to the community's attention until after the deletion review closed, I think the concern would have been much greater. You know? This doesn't mean you intended to deceive, or that you acted in bad faith, although to be honest your inability to see these problems does suggest some degree of selective hearing, if that's the right phrase. We all have blind spots, but anyway, I hope you'll try to consider this a little bit more from outside your own perspective, and the whole thing might make more sense. Mackan79 (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another response or two later, as I think through your comment, but here's an initial one: From the very beginning (see User talk:Noroton) I recognized that a CU could have a concern. My focus has always been on how I was treated once the CU had that concern. If you see my most recent comments at RFAR (and maybe you have -- I'm rushed right now and haven't checked; see my "@SlimVirgin" response), you'll see how I think the CU should have reacted. It simply didn't have to be with a block, a day of silence and an odd comment at ANI. And someone has to review Lar's communication with Versageek -- what was said, how, and when.
Policies aren't poems to be given alternate, equally valid, vague, impressionistic interpretations. They need to be clear enough for an editor to follow without an enormous amount of intepretive work, and if we're going to leave CU work for very trusted admins, they damn well can be expected to act with a minimal amount of tact. Without assuming bad faith on the part of either Lar or Versageek -- and by this point, who would blame me if I did? -- why don't you consider two possibilities: first, that one or both editors acted out of bad motives to try to influence the DRV by using CU and admin powers to make me look bad in ways far beyond any technical violations I'd committed; second, that one or both editors used the various tools, either in an acceptable way or a ham-handed way. I think those scenarios are all possible, but given that harm was done to me and given that the first scenario is at least as likely as the second, Arbcom should look into it. Given Lar's and Versageek's lack of response on their talk pages, my suspicions are heightened. Consider also the idea that I was acting malevolently vs. in good faith. There is no proof for the first, but plenty of proof for the second. I used the alternate accounts for a damn year and did no harm, but suddenly I meant to do harm here? It is so obvious, and could be figured out so easily that I don't think it falls within admin discretion.
And notice something else: You've got two CUs on one side and one editor on the other. If we're having trouble figuring out just what WP:SOCK permits and doesn't permit, which is given the benefit of the doubt -- the editor or the checkusers who need to know that policy inside and out in order to deal with socks? J.delanoy, a CU, will block if an editor makes a mistake, then demands of me that I prove Versageek's bad faith -- yet he would require no determination of bad faith on my part before he thinks I should be blocked. It's a double standard, and a typical one. New admins are sometimes told they can expect to make mistakes with the tools. Why not expect editors to make mistakes when policy is not always easy to decipher? What exactly was the justification for not assuming good faith here?
Thanks for your response, I can only quickly address a couple of points. First, I think blocks are over-used as a general matter, and I think communication first would have been better here as it would be in just about all cases. You're right that there's no reason to block someone as a first step; mistakes are far too easily made, even with several people working together. Second, I agree that policy should be as clear as possible. With that said, I don't see how you addressed my point. In this case I think a CU would have been justified in thinking that not to act immediately would have risked prejudicing a very prominent DRV. Accordingly, I think any CU looking at this would have needed to raise the issue for those participating in the ongoing DRV. Moreover, based on your current explanation, and assuming your good faith, I think an admonishment would be called for: don't jeopardize significant processes with your use of an alternate (or brand new) account. I'm not commenting on all aspects of your case, as I haven't looked in at it closely enough (such as whether both checkusers were too involved in this to act or if you can say one improperly influenced the other). I've just gotten the feeling that you aren't seeing how the way you went about all of this played into the result, which I think is giving you unrealistic expectations. Mackan79 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciated the reference to "high drama" because it was the same problem I saw. It doesn't mean your actions were dramatic; it's a statement about the discussion itself (see the current policy which prohibits alternate accounts in project discussions, for a reason).. As far as it being obvious that you were acting in good faith, however, the problem is that it isn't obvious at all. I don't know if you are aware of the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article (now under another name), and its very long list of AfDs, but it turned out that the very first AfD for that article was done by a sockpuppet of one of its creators, exactly to disrupt that and future discussions. In just about every subsequent AfD people would say "what, again?" In parliamentary procedure, this kind of thing is tradition. To say it was completely obvious you were acting in good faith, well I'm sorry, but nobody's intent can be that obvious to another person who has so little to go on. This isn't about arrogance, but about basic responsibility to the project. As far as scandals go, if Shankbone later discovered your involvement, and that multiple checkusers knew about it but said nothing about it, that would be a scandal.
Regarding policy, I think that's just never how Wikipedia has worked. You're supposed to follow community norms, not just the letter of these policies. See WP:BURO, which is the first link at WP:POLICY. I don't know that it's the best system, but that's the system in place.
"high drama" -- you find something useful in that phrase of Lar's. I find it absolutely arrogant. It also illustrates just how far afield Lar and Versageek are from policy -- that thing that editors and admins are supposed to be guided by. Policy is what admins point to when they tell you you've done something wrong. It's what Arbcom refers to when they make rulings. And yet there's nothing in policy about avoiding "high drama". Simultaneously accusing me of going against policy while using a strained interpretation of policy is -- an interpretation so strained that it actually contradicts what the policy actually says -- is arrogant on the part of Lar and Versageek. I didn't start that DRV for fun: I had a serious purpose in trying to help this project. There's nothing wrong and everything right about starting a DRV when a closing admin engages in outrageous conduct (even if only I thought the conduct was outragious -- but if you look at the DRV, you'll find that most editors commenting in it agreed on that point). There's an attitude (shared by Lar, Versageek, Delanoy, maybe others) that admins are some kind of demigods in Wikipedia and that policies are there to be bent or ignored by admins, and to criticize an admin is some kind of attack. My attitude is that if an admin can't point to a clear policy or a clear danger of harm to the wiki or some kind of harm to another editor, that admin is wrong to block, threaten to block or to use any tools or authority on me. I think mine's the right attitude and Lar's is clearly a bad attitude.
"Shankbone" -- The only way you can have more than a tiny concern about me and Shankbone is by assuming bad faith. I commented briefly on him in two or three posts in the AfD, and those weren't unsympathetic comments either. It simply cannot be more clear to anyone looking at the AfD and DRV that my participation had to do with whether the sourcing was good enough and whether we should follow policy. It's obvious that's what I cared about. It's all I discussed after the first few posts in the AfD and it's all I discussed in the DRV -- that and the closing admin's actions. When my clean-start action was destroyed, not one vote changed in the DRV. And support for my position actually increased in the votes after that. How could my support for keeping the article be some kind of subtle attack on Shankbone when I originally wanted to delete it? And my change of position came automatically and was based on the same principles I voiced originally. I happened to have a new account when I saw the Shankbone AfD, I certainly didn't create the account a year before the article existed and resign from my original account weeks before the article existed in order to hide my identity so that I could somehow hurt Shankbone by opposing and then supporting the existence of the article. That my reasons throughout were perfectly understandable and consistent also makes the idea ridiculous. Look at Lar's comments in the DRV. He was enraged at me. That's why he didn't see it. My earlier conflict with Shankbone was rather mild. I was unnecessarily sarcastic (in, frankly, a nasty way) in a thread at Wikipedia Review (I was irked that he had said a Fox News anchor was gay in a post on his [Shankbone's] blog). During Less Heardvanyou's re-election as admin, I said he was criticizing LHVU for getting involved in too much drama while himself constantly getting involved in too much drama. He then quickly started a discussion on my talk page and I told him I wasn't interested in having a discussion with him -- and that point I decided I should apologize for what I'd said at WR. I also told him at that point that I remained "appalled" at his behavior and might comment again if I happened to run across more appalling behavior. I have a low opinion of his actions -- that doesn't mean I hate him or want harm to come to him. This last discussion with him happened months ago. When it came to WP having an article on him, I think it would have caused a lot of bother for a lot of admins and a different kind of bother for him. (I did have a conflict with him briefly about two years ago, he annoyed me by commenting on my talk page and by his comments about another editor.) This is hardly the stuff of hatreds and vendettas. We actually happen to know just how important my past conflicts with Shankbone were to people involved in the DRV: We know that it didn't make one damn bit of difference. No one changed their mind because of it. (Forgive the length, but you brought it up.)
It seems to me that there's no prohibition on clean-start accounts commenting in things like DRVs for a damn good reason: It doesn't matter unless the situation is so bad that the editor with the new account is actually engaging in disruption. Using the phrase "high drama" seems to be meant by Lar to fudge the fact that "criticism" and "debate" are not actually synonyms for "disruption". Shouldn't clean-start accounts be allowed to do what policy doesn't forbid, especially if a clear case can't be made that they're doing harm? Isn't that just fundamentally fair? And isn't excusing bad blocks and smearing fundamentally unfair? Should this really be so difficult to see? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're at a disadvantage not knowing more about this situation. There are only two senses in which the JohnWBarber account was a sock: In relation to (a) User:Reconstruction and the other accounts I was using and (b) in relationship to Noroton. With regard to the other accounts, that apparently had nothing to do with the block, since Versageek has never referred to it. I agree that I shouldn't have participated in an AfD or DRV with anything other than my main account (technically User:Reconsideration after Noroton resigned and stopped editing on Oct. 5). Having those multiple accounts was a violation by this point, but only technically, since no harm was ever done by them (and no one says there was). Knowledge of the Barber account's connection with those accounts would have revealed nothing of interest to anyone. Regarding the connection between JohnWBarber and Noroton, there was not even a technical violation of WP:SOCK by this point. None. Not even under the "misusing a checkuser account" bullet item. In relation to Noroton, JohnWBarber wasn't a sock any more. So citing current policy doesn't get us anywhere: Not even under current policy was JohnWBarber's participation in the AfD or DRV a violation (with regard to Noroton) or a meaningful violation (with regard to being a sock of Reconsideration).
I'm not saying it should have been obvious in an instant (I've repeatedly said a CU could well have been suspicious, although I don't think I realized that until I went back and read WP:SOCK after the block). I'm saying that I could have instantly explained what was going on and a CU could have instantly confirmed what I said by looking at diffs. It simply is obvious when you look at my conduct: The edit histories of all the non-Noroton accounts are not huge except for User:Reconsideration, which is about 99 percent edits to year-in-poetry pages, so the history of each of these accounts can be figured out pretty quickly. Anyone who thought I had a conflict with Shankbone with the Noroton account could have readily confirmed that (there's a web page somewhere that shows which pages any two editors have both edited, and a search of noticeboards could have been done pretty quickly).
if Shankbone later discovered your involvement, and that multiple checkusers knew about it but said nothing about it, that would be a scandal. Thank you for discussing this with me, because it's helping me to think about it from another perspective, and this is valuable. I'll have to think more about it, but here are some initial thoughts: If he'd discovered my involvement and the knowledge of checkusers, I assume the checkusers cold say: "We discussed the matter with JohnWBarber, found no violation of policy, specifically no active deception or effort to disrupt, or disruption. [...] What exactly did JohnWBarber do to harm you, David? Do you have any reason to believe what he was doing was meant to harm you?" Now, in fact, we know exactly what David Shankbone's reaction would be, and he must have gone through just about the same thinking to get there. I don't consider his reaction to be extraordinarily graceful, I consider it to be common sense and a lack of animus (perhaps extraordinarily level headed, given some of the other comments that were cropping up -- and notice how those editors shut up once I posted explanations). The fact is, DS and I had a couple of run-ins, not any kind of feud. In order to think I was acting maliciously, there should be a burden of proof on the person who thinks so. Anything else is unfair. Anyway, Versageek's reasoning was based on a reading of my comments at the AfD and DRV that were "deceptive" and "disruptive" (which is what Lar is talking about when he referred to "high drama editing with the sock"). And both Versageek's and Lar's interpretation of WP:SOCK was completely, unacceptably outside of policy (in both letter and spirit).
You're supposed to follow community norms, not just the letter of these policies. I don't believe there was a community norm that I violated. How can there be a community norm for participation by a cleanstart account in an AfD? If you don't want cleanstart accounts participating in certain discussions, that needs to be clearly stated in policy because the harm is just not obvious (you'd probably have to set a time limit on it, because you wouldn't want to say the cleanstart account can't participate forever). But I think your real concern is my participation in a matter involving someone I'd had a conflict with in the past. How would you write up a passage on something that would cover this? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I'm late in responding to this, but just wanted to acknowledge your response. The fact is I'm a bit worn out by the discussion, I don't think the policy can really be any more specific about this without basically getting rid of clean starts and probably pseudonymous editing altogether, and I think that trying to set the policy around your situation would largely be a disaster for that policy. The one possibility I see would be a statement that editors not get involved in decisions (especially contentious decisions involving other editors) where their previous actions could reasonably be seen as relevant (we disagree about whether this was the case, clearly). I think any specific time line would be self-defeating, and at this time would either be shot down or result in "the cleanstart account can't participate forever." To be totally honest my opinion is this: if ArbCom took your case, my best guess it that they would have barred you from using any other accounts in the future without getting their permission (as they have done with other editors), basically because you are (in my opinion) very resistant to respecting the subtleties of community dynamics with regard to alternate accounts. This may or may not have forced them into trying to clarify the intricacies of the policy, although you can see John Vandenberg's rejection comment for why he also thinks your case is not a good one for setting policy. I know you disagree, anyway, and maybe I'm wrong, and surely this comment will come across in the wrong way (a little Wikipedia realpolitik, if you will), but I really have just been through enough discussions about sock policy recently that I can't bear the idea of starting another. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JWB. :) Thanks very much for your reorg of the P.C. article. It was very helpful. I was trying to add stuff and thinking about how to group it a little better (the extensive female section seemed a bit weird), and you came and did it up very well. It's great when I'm grinding away on something and someone with fresh eyes on the subject can come in and fix it up. I trimmed the "literarily presitigious" and "early" bits from what you added. I didn't see that in the source and it seemed like unnecessary embellishment. Have a great weekend. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no worries. And I think a fresh start is a great idea and opportunity. I had no idea who you were when I came here to thank you. It's funny how usernames make certain impressions. JohnWBarber seemed very studious and scholarly to me. I assumed you were one of those bigtime senior editors who don't post to the drama boards but just do serious article work. I think some people think I'm a punk or young for my user name (I know some think I'm a woman because there's a song of that title). Anyway, enjoy yourself. Don't forget to let me know when you get your article underway so I can have a look! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement on the JohnWBarber, Versageek, Lar case request is excessively lengthy. Readers should not be expected to have to read through 4000 words in order to understand the argument being made by a single editor. Please trim it, or ask a clerk to do so for you. AGK19:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to condense your initial statement into small paragraphs or bullet points. Focus on why the arbitration committee should hear your case. Then simply have a couple of lines in response to any other statements you want to rebut. If you'd like to have a link to your initial statement in the trimmed version, that would be fine with me. AGK19:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear that I was acting in my capacity as a clerk. Flouting my position would seem to me to give the impression of from-on-high dictation, which I dislike doing, but I guess in some cases it can be as unhelpful as it is collegial. The same applies for my userpage, although I both have a clerk icon (the meaning of which is not easy to understand to most, I concede) and am listed on the list of clerks. But I take your point. And thank you for reducing your statement. AGK21:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry I can't remember the name) - just dropping a note, that reading up from the bottom (looking for content information for the article) I got to your <sermon> half way up, and it was almost the first bit of useful information on the article. Which is pretty unfortunate, because if you were reading from the top down, that makes a whole page of complete utter trash on the talk page. Isonomia (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification of your continued hatred of me and everything I stand for. What an astonishing level of negative spin you managed to wrap that up in, too. You must be so proud of yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I have a positive impression of ++Lar (in limited interaction), and think he is trying to contribute positively to the global warming brouhaha. That said, I agree with your point, that the community includes all editors, not just admins, so it was not quite correct to say it is for "admins to decide".
As an aside, and apropos of nothing special, I saw a picture of Darien on your user page - I was in Darien yesterday (although mainly because I took the wrong exit. I meant to take exit 35, misremembered it as 36, and realized my error when I saw the town line of Darien.)--SPhilbrickT14:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the work and good humor on List of Danish Poets. I finally found the tag I was thinking of that you might want to make use of {{underconstruction}}. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cannondale Historic District was recently split from the Cannondale, Connecticut article. Since you added most of the content in the neighborhood article, would you be able to clarify the distinction between the two areas? The historic district article seems to be confused as to how it is related to the neighborhood. Thanks very much. --Polaron | Talk17:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a very strong believer in reforming how BLPs get handled, as you would gather from User:Collect/BLP. My run-ins have all been, in fact, defending BLPs from being laced with allegations and tabloid material. That does not mean, moreover, that I feel a Raleigh solution is called for, nor that the manner in which it was implemented was wise. The worst BLPs, in my experience, have been ones where groups of editors work together to add as much damaging material as possible to the BLP. As the readership of those BLPs is three or more orders of magnitude greater than the deleted ones, I would suggest that the energy should be better spent on cleaning those ones up, rather than deleting BLPs which get perhaps 10 views per month. This does not mean "nothing negative" but that once we have three negative items about a person, the next fifty added on are purely Ossa on Pelion. Collect (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the groups of editors adding damaging material is the worst problem -- partly because it's one of the hardest to fix. But I also think the BLP crusaders, much as I dislike the way they're doing this and the way they're treating other people, have identified an area where Wikipedia is in some danger. I don't know how to measure the actual danger (just the number of BLPs or BLPs without references doesn't actually prove we need to be deleting them fast). I'd like to see lists of unreferenced BLPs categorized by subject areas so that WikiProjects and other interested editors could identify them and work on them. That would attract the responsible content editors to the articles most likely to need help. I hate seeing good information get deleted. Thanks for the Raleigh solution! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking a few which have been listed, I find they get between 100 and 200 page views per month. Sarah Palin gets 200,000 page views per month. We are getting sidetracked on to "low viewership BLPs without references generally under 500 words" when the elephant in the room goes unchecked <g>. We can delete the minutiae whenever needed, through extant processes. Then we genially ignore the genuine problem. Assuming 50,000 evil small BLPs, comprising 1 million words, getting 150 views per month -- gives us a maximum of 150 million words which will not be read in a month (I suspect under 2% of them contain anything really scandalous). One non-BLP which does have BLP issues, Prescott Bush, is viewed 16,000 times a month (as a very typical number for WP articles). It has 2,444 words. Number of words per month which could be affected by any controversial or contentious material? Nearly forty million by its lonesome -- and I can assure you that it has had very contentious material placed in it. Or basically we would have to delete more than a quarter of the BLPs which may have nothing worng with them to counter the effect of the one minor article. Indeed, WP is anxious to swat at flies, and ignoring the elephants here <g>. Collect (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone like Sarah Palin has supporters out there (and online here) to defend her. We often get groups of supportive editors hanging around BLPs of famous people. I'm more worried about some school principal who happens to have a BLP (and let's say there's no question of notability). A few kids put in some nasty libel and the article sits there for months or years with it, then somebody else finds the article, reads the awful libel, may not understand what little authority Wikipedia has, and word spreads around the principal's community. It's at some point after all this happens that responsible editors at Wikipedia even hear about it, and the damage is done. At some point, something like this will really blow up in Wikipedia's face, like the Siegenthaler incident or the incident with the professor who was detained at some airport in Canada because of some libelous thing said about him on Wikipedia. There's no way of insuring that Wikipedia isn't used that way, but maybe we can make it less likely. The more I think about it, the more I think wikiprojects are important and should be supported, because they can really alert editors to what articles are both interesting to them and need help. You know, if no one has edited some unimportant BLP for a long while, and if few people are reading it, it may not be so bad if it vanishes. Whenever I think about all this, I keep reminding myself that any position we take here involves some losses and some gains, not all of it very important -- as long as we don't screw up with some emotional reaction. I think I can imagine what contentious material went into the Bush article -- or some of it anyway. At the opposite extreme, I read at Jimbo's talk page that Scott Mac has been, apparently, overprotective of the John Silber article. So much so that obviously proper information has been moved to the talk page. I've met Silber, done research on him, written about him for publication, and I know he's been very controversial in Boston for many years -- and yet Scott Mac seems to be treating him as if he isn't WP:WELLKNOWN. That's what the crusading spirit does to you (or maybe I'm missing something; I'd get involved in that one, but I've got too much on my plate already). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be concerned if such were the actual norm, but the cases examined so far show exceedingly little libel at all. If that is the primary argument, it is like the man seeing a shrink - the shrink asked him why he kept clapping his hands every five minutes, Answer: To keep the elephants away! Shrink: But there are no elephants for a thousand miles from here. Reply: See! It works! BTW, there have been extended periods with remarkably iffy material at Sarah Palin -- all it takes are three determined editors to keep material in, no matter its value. And since we have a mechanism in place for material which ought not be here, it seems to be courting disaster to discard the existing process in favor of gunslingers. Yep - the Posse Comitatus worked, but is it how WP ought to be modeled? Collect (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitively agree with you that some of the articles that are unreferenced are about people whose inclusion in Wikipedia is desirable. We need to make a strong effort to notify people that are interested in improving them. We need to get those fixed, and get rid of the low quality article about nonnotable people. These have fallen through the cracks because we don't have an organized way to do quality reviews. We need to make a priory of cleaning up this backlog and then organize ways to regularly review our articles. This maintenance phase of article upkeep is extremely important if we are going to raise the quality of Wikipedia articles. FloNight♥♥♥♥22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read a plot summary of the latest Gibson movie, at least I think that's what I read, and saw some bits about it filming in Mass, but I can't figure out what any of it has to do with my crimes against humanity? Can you connecticut it up for me so I'm not in a confused mass or in a hole? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Based on your comments at the current RfC it appears that you might prefer something more strongly worded than this proposal but I urge you to give it serious consideration as a good compromise position. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let the flock chirp. There's no need to respond to every comment. Either someone with the authority to help will weigh in or not. Anyway, thanks for trying to address a problem constructively. Your thread title is a little strong though, so you might consider toning it down to something more soothing in an effort to model the civil conduct you're seeking. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to say that. I suddenly feel dirty just involving myself at AN/I. I thought "ongoing abuse" was OK. I used that title in notifying people, including Tarc about the thread, so I don't want to change it now. Gotta go get some things done before the incoming storm arrives. Thanks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it was no problem. Thanks for your explanation about the years in poetry pages and how the countires should be organised. I did wonder at the time whether one entry, as was the case for György Petri, was substantial enough for its own new section. I can certainly see the logic in the way you've got it organised, I'll definitely keep this in mind for the future. Thanks for the advice :) Fallschirmjäger16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On February 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article My Way killings, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
That was a truly fine thing to post right then and right there. Thank you. I hope it gets some people to see what they're doing and dial things back a bit. ++Lar: t/c06:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although it doesn't change my view on BLP issues as a whole, your post about the You're So Vain article on ANI was fun enough that I plan to work it into a speech I'll be giving on BLP issues at a conference later this year. I'll provide full attribution and send you a link if it is published. Trusting that this has your permission. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on your recent decision to delete my page. Spuyten Duyvil is by no means a vanity press. In fact my work was solicited for publication with that publisher, with whom I had had no previous contact. They are a well-established literary press. My first book, Stone, was publ. by Copper Beech Press, also not a vanity press, & well-respected. I not only contributed to the anthology Glass of Green Tea, I co-edited it. I'm not sure the people editing this page were very well-informed about "notability" int he poetry world.
- online version of a graduate paper on another book, In RI. This paper is by an Italian translator of my work (she solicited the book from me for translation). This book also received notice in an Italian newspaper (for which I don't have a reference).
I would "officially" request that the ongoing Request not be referred to on either of the AfD's mentioned. I would prefer that the RfE does not become a venue for arguing the merits of the specific processes. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate my point, I think you've stretched everybody's patience to near breaking point over the past few days. You're lashing out in all directions and this speaks to your judgement. Take a rest from Wikipedia, and try to remember that these are humans you're dealing with. They don't like to be taken for fools. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 02:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be when I tried to WP:SNOW close somebody else's AfD nomination .....? Mmmmmmmm, no. Would that be when I tried to prematurely close that same person's AN/I thread about the improper closing of that AfD nomination .....? Mmmmmmmmm, no, not there either. As I recall, I lashed out at you neither on your talk page or at ANI (although I did complain), or later at the GenSanctions complaint talk page. Seems to me I've been pretty unlashinglike.
Did I "lash out" at ChrisO? Nope. I defended myself from what I considered his poor conduct. Conduct so poor that it repeatedly violated not just the sanctions regime, but ordinary civil conduct -- and I mean "ordinary civil conduct" in real life. Did I miss your suggestion somewhere to ChrisO to not "lash out" or "stretch everybody's patience to near breaking point" by not filing frivolous, nuisance complaints? Where is the diff of any of that, TS? I've made a normal AfD and had to work hard just to keep the page from being closed. Gosh, this could all almost make a guy forget there's a general sanctions regime in place. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)minor addition -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At I said, you're lashing out. You've readily illustrated that while purporting to do the opposite. Take a rest, if not from Wikipedia, at least from this area that seems to cause you to behave so oddly. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 07:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing an AfD down without cause and trying to close down an AN/I thread look more like odd behavior, and (although I wouldn't accuse you of it) would be more consistent with lashing out. Making a comment on one AfD, starting another, discussing the problems with the existence of the article at that AfD, defending the existence of the AfD at AN/I, defending myself from an unfair complaint and filing a complaint -- nothing odd in that. You've readily illustrated that while purporting to do the opposite You're at the point where you need to stop making these derogatory statements or start backing them up with evidence, Tony. That would show if your vague comments are anchored in something like a concrete problem with my actions. One could reasonably hypothesize (but not firmly state) that an alternative reason for your statements would be that you're incredibly uncomfortable with the actual facts, reasoning and policy I'm bringing up that show just how embarassingly POV the Climate change denial article is. You should clear up whether the reasons for your odd actions and statements here are due to one or the other or to some other reason. It would make me much happier if, for instance, the reason for all this flurry on your part, including unorthodox actions and unsubstantiated statements, were from sincere but misplaced concerns, which I'll continue to assume until I see evidence to the contrary. I haven't chacked -- have you counseled ChrisO yet? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Enforcement Request filed by you against ChrisO. It has been closed, noting that you should not use the ER process to file retaliatory claims. I suspect you are not going to be any form of happy as regards the result, but it may have been worse for you. I suggest you step away from the particular issue... except the small matter of you posting after the closure. I have not reviewed the content, but would suggest that it is irrelevant now the issue is dealt with. I would be grateful if you would self revert. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped in on the Climate Change Denial debate, started by thinking it was a good topic, and gradually shifted to the view that it was hopelessly POV, and also much more about lobbying than denial. I sensed your frustration, while trying to keep civil. Oh well. For what it is worth, my personal POV is fairly mainstream: Humans have changed the environment dramatically with forest clearance, farming and burning fossil fuels, and it seems highly likely that these activities have triggered warming. The science is very complex so there is room for doubt, but given the risk of huge disruption if it is real, policies to reduce emissions and deforestation seem justified. Some industries will be harmed by these policies and some will benefit, so there is lobbying on both sides. Public opinion is volatile and not always rational on the subject. So much for the POV. But Wikipedia should just report on what is known, what has been said, where there are disputes, what is being done and so on. It really bothers me (and you too, I assume) to see editors passionately taking sides. I just got involved in an article on ghosts, which is also controversial. I personally do not believe in ghosts, but a lot of people do and have fascinating ideas about them. A rich part of human culture. I am happy to record those beliefs, and feel no urge to insert an editorial "... this is of course not true." But some editors feel they have to make that point. Oh well.
Would there be any point starting an article in Climate change lobbying, discussing efforts to downplay or exaggerate the problem depending on what each industry wants to achieve? Or would that just be stirring up more trouble? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably both, I think. It takes a lot of patience, and I think people only stick around for the long haul when this is extremely important to them. I think I come down on the issue pretty close to where you are. You might look at Business action on climate change. You might find this interesting. [13] It's actually a good thing. We need more green technology, it's not so much an economic need, in which case the free market alone would do the best job providing it, but an environmental and national security need. So Obama's massive spending here might be the right thing. If he benefits politically by jump-starting this industry with taxpayer funds, I'm fine with that if it actually gets the industry going. (The article implies Obama is hoping to get ongoing campaign contributions from this industry, which is a natural hope for a politician -- eventually, though, the federal spigot will be shut off and the industry will rise or fall on its own. And then all those businesspeople will likely switch to the Republican Party.) I just hope they don't waste too much of that $90 billion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know for sure that in the long run we will move to completely sustainable energy sources and stable, renewable land use. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. The only question is how fast. Will we quit burning coal before all the coal has been burned? And I suppose there are questions about how and to what extent the governments should force the pace. Personally, I prefer a neutral carbon tax rather than active subsidies, just my bias. But I think I will leave this and move onto less controversial subjects. There are more than enough editors and articles in this space. Ghosts in Polynesian culture badly needs work. :-) Aymatth2 (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the Climate Change enforcement request concerning you with a general warning to all editors and no specific sanction against yourself. I will contact you presently (if you wish) to explain my methodolgy within the request, which I think you found troubling. This may take a while though, as there's a hockey game coming on soon. :) Franamax (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due to Anthropogenic Global Warming, a storm has devastated coastal Fairfield County, Connecticut, and we've been without power since Saturday afternoon at Barber Central Comnmand (another half million people also had their power knocked out, but never mind them). Our forces have decamped and we are currently marshalling them from Barber Northern Command, safely away from the coast. Communication with our forces from this location is difficult (I can't stand typing on this computer), and power isn't expected back for a bit longer, and there are higher priorities than Wikipedia. The local libraries are swamped, and I can't find the password for my alternate account anyway. Don't expect new directives until the end of the week. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I think it's good to have you around too, since at least normally you don't get too worked up. Personally I think people listen to anyone; it's just a matter of figuring out what they haven't thought of. As far as staying cool, I saw an editor I appreciate once comment that his trick was not to post about half of the things he ended up writing, which is basically a trick I have as well. Works well sometimes to give it a second thought, in general. But then I never did think I would get blocked as a WordBomb sock.... So who knows what the future holds. Best, Mackan79 (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2/0, I made serious comments about the behavior of an editor in the proper forum discussing just that behavior. I didn't go beyond describing that behavior and what was wrong with it. Why don't you explain to me how I'm "skirting the line of personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground"? Please tell me just what particular comments concern you and how they may be violating particular parts of either NPA or BATTLEGROUND, because I honestly don't see it (I assume "skirting the line" means "may be violating", but please correct me if I'm wrong). If you can show me where I was wrong, I'll look at it with an open mind. I'm reading over both my comments and both of those policy pages, but I haven't seen it yet. I take both of those policies very seriously. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that a Climate change probation enforcement request is open regarding another editor does not mean that it is open season to accuse someone of being a detriment to the project or try to hound them away. This pointless sniping has been occurring far too much on that page by far too many editors, and it really needs to stop. You discuss the principle that any sanctions should be meted with the aim of improving the encyclopedia; this is great, but it needs to apply also to all discussion between the opening and closing of a request. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at all three diffs, looking for evidence of what you said. I haven't found any. I find your statement is false in parts, assuming bad faith on my part in other parts. I'm taking what you say seriously, so I'm going to respond in detail and maybe you can show me where my thinking is wrong or see where yours is wrong:
to accuse someone of being a detriment to the project False. Are you confusing my comments with those of someone else? Where did I say that or imply that? Certainly not in any of the comments you link to. Did I do that elsewhere? I think the totality of his bad behavior is worth handling with a longer block in this case. I think it would never have gotten this bad or gone on this long if blocks had been escalated earlier. Everything I've said is consistent with that position, which is what I explicitly said more than once. I wouldn't say his bad behavior outweighs his good behavior because I don't comment on things I'm not familiar with. I have explicitly said that his good behavior doesn't make his bad behavior acceptable. I have also explicitly said that his good behavior can legitimately be used to act a little slower on his bad behavior, but that that point was passed long ago.
or try to hound them away Assumption of bad faith. I've commented in response to the comments of others. I've done so on the complaints page and when the discussion was moved to the talk page, there. It's a discussion on an appropriate topic. That isn't in any sense "hounding". That editor did what he did, I find admins and others ignoring it and I'm pointing that out. I've proposed nothing harsher than a 48-hour block. Why would you say I'm trying to hound them away? I've said he should be put in a position where he's closer to a topic ban because that will likely get his attention. I haven't advocated a topic ban yet, but if his bad behavior continues, that would be the direction we're headed, based on sanctions other editors have received. Is that even unreasonable on my part?
You discuss the principle that any sanctions should be meted with the aim of improving the encyclopedia; this is great, but it needs to apply also to all discussion between the opening and closing of a request. You haven't shown me where my comments strayed from that goal. I certainly made them with that goal in mind.
I've asked you to show me where I violated NPA or BATTLEGROUND. You haven't. Look, you've got an obligation here, too. If you're going to say I violated a policy, you need to show it or withdraw the allegation. That's a requirement here (second to last sentence) and here (fourth bullet). I'm not wikilawyering with you. It's simply the case that I neither mean to be doing what you say I'm doing and I can't find examples of it in any of my statements. You mention WP:BATTLEGROUND. You know what? In looking over that again, I see this statement: Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. I think perhaps this common phrase [14] might well be interpreted as not being in a spirit of cooperation (although I in fact think that getting someone's attention when they're not listening is sometimes necessary for a spirit of cooperation). So I'm going to redact that. [15] Now why don't you be cooperative and either back up the NPA allegation or withdraw it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to assume good faith that I may have misinterpreted your intentions and state of mind here. Thank you for taking thee time to consider how your edits might be perceived by others. I am taking a bit of a break from the free-slinging vitriol in those pages, but wish you the best of luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the Burns poems, I was going on the dates given in the relevant articles. The date unlinking bots are wrong, as the new "rule" doesn't apply to year in topic. Deb (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time at the moment either, but it sure could use some improvement. And there certainly is an over abundance of references available giving the subject matter a significant amount of coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of this non-free media on Wikipedia is under review for compliance with policies on non-free content. You are welcome to join the discussion on its entry on the Non-free content review page. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I can no longer assume Mgilles is acting in good faith here. Repeatedly removing sourced material from an article and ignoring the other editors on the talk page is not constructive, especially when I was willing to compromise on a shorter section. The editor's goal is suppressing any information about the museum that could be seen as negative. Let me know how you want to proceed.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll need some time to go over it. I'll get back to you. Mgilles appears to be a new editor. I know it's tedious, and I'll try to get back to it soon. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:TopOfEverybodyDrawMohammedDay.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
On May 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I see you've reverted Fred Singer; you apparently feel your edit is so non-contentious that you don't need to attempt to explain it on talk. Would that be correct? You also feel that all the statements are adequentely sourced; is that also correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, at the moment I'm spending my time on Wikipedia pages where there's more chance that an editor will actually do something productive for readers. That chance appears to be much lower on articles you're working on. I'll get around to those lower-priority articles when I get around to it. Until then, try to make the best of it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I made the slightest insinuation that you create articles in order to boost your edit count. I certainly don't either, and my 'brag' list is discrete, and far, far shorter than that of those who feel they have something to brag about. Howerver, a quick look at the editing history of the author of the article in question was enough to lead me into thinking that we might possibly have someone on board, who in all good faith, thinks that this encyclopedia is a place to make up all sorts of short, possibly non encyclopedic articles. The very fact that a large number of them have been AfD is enough to question the creator's motives. In all cases, it's probably wasting a lot of peoples' time, including mine and possibly yours too, by commenting on it.--Kudpung (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you are aware of it, but the whole antagonism discussion at Talk:Fred Singer#Removal_of_tags is, um, antagonistic (starting even with your original request, reasonable as it otherwise is). It looks like we can make real progress there if we concentrate on the substance instead. I'd suggest to take the off-topic meta discussion somewhere else - if you only comment on one user, that users talk page is appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to disagree on whether or not it's antagonistic to point out antagonism and suggestit stop. From the end of my last comment on that page: Now, I'd rather discuss the article on the article talk page. Let's stick to that. WP:WEIGHT is not the point -- in this context it would involve evaluation of several POV sources disagreeing on a subject. We're not even close to that I guess I need to do my own research on what an NPOV description of SEPP would be if no one else will provide it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC) As indicated, I actually said all that I wanted to say on that topic. Hopefully we're all on the same page, now, without the antagonism. And if it continues, I won't be responding to it on that page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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—
Hi John. I read over the secondary statement you posted on the request for arbitration case page. I think you might have misunderstood SBHB's position. While you have focused on his final point, which only about half the editors who made a comment on it agreed with, I think the more important point of his statement was his first few sentences: "At bottom this is a content dispute...But we know that admins are not supposed to make content decisions. So, we try to re-cast our content concerns as behavioral ones. While there are a few clear instances of misbehavior, it is more typical to see people quote-mining, presenting diffs out of context, raising objections to precisely the same behavior in which they themselves engage, and the like because they have to do something to show misconduct by their opposing party." However, I do agree with you that his conclusion is most definitely that ArbCom should take up the case. NW(Talk)19:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may well have cited support for SBHB's position the wrong way. Thanks for reminding me about it. I need to review that and probably correct that comment of mine. I'll try to get to that today. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit [17] to my comments there should either clear it up or make my statement so difficult to understand that ArbCom members can ignore it. Either way, I think I fixed it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, Stephan. Did you just happen to chance on Mark's post or are you monitoring him or me? I'm not offended, just amused. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And here I thought you may have had something to do with it! I found it when I did a Google search of "Gore Effect" and "Wikipedia". Here it is, from today. [18] A certain Wikipedian is mentioned, but not disparagingly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made an edit that removed a closing parens. I removed the opening one because I couldn't suss out whether you wanted your insertion inside or outside. If you have an opinion about this tiny issue, please feel free to replace parentheses.--SPhilbrickT22:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask you to review WP:RS. Neither blogs nor user created content are reliable sources - specifically, you have added content sourced to "instapundit" and other unreliable blogs, along with "urbandictonary." Please don't do this. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We may use primary sources. These sources in the article are used to establish that the phrase was used at that time by those sources, no more. It's essentially using them the same way we'd use a commentator as a source of what the commentator's opinion is, which is allowed under WP:RS, and they're reliable for the same reason: We don't need to trust the commentator for anything but the fact that the commentator said a particular thing at a particular place and time. There is no sourcing problem here. I'm going to repost this at the talk page for the article, where this kind of discussion really belongs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the Urbandictionary, but the distinction between usage and authoritative makes sense for blogs. I understand why Instapundit is treated as a blog for referencing purposes; while it probably ha a better error rate than the NYT, WP has to treat it categorically. However, the Corner, I believe is under the editorial control ofthe National Review, so should be acceptable as a Reliable Source.SPhilbrickT11:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.)
I'm not 100% sure, but the major edit was made by Mackan, not Nsaa (who has been hard at work on the citations). That being said, Mackan's edit ain't half-bad as I see it and was supported by MarkNutley. I don't care one way or the other but this game of musical lede's is becoming tiresome.
[19]. Section one and three is the same, the Same is section two and four? What did I do wrong? I've only added technical stuff AND removed one tagging. Nsaa (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Given your past comments, I am absolutely positive that this comes as no surprise to you. Personally, I've never seen an admin go on such a tear as you've been on for the past couple of months or so. You either fundamentally don't know Wikipedia behavioral norms and policies or just don't care. You've been told repeatedly to stop. Well, I think it's probable that you're going to learn now. The words needs some attitude adjustment fit you to a 'T'. Complaints about you for this RFAR were so predictable that I'm sure I'm wasting some time hunting up diffs that other editors are already researching, but it's very important to get the case against you on record. If I find I have more telling diffs, I'm going to remove some of my evidence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes me just another user with a serious gripe about CC enforcement. You could just as easily add Stephan Schulz and Dave Souza as other admins with a gripe about enforcement. Or for ex admins add WMC and SBHB. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned "admin" because admins are supposed to act better than most editors. I mentioned "tear" because I think you've been committing a string of violations of behavioral policy. I mentioned "attitude" because I think that's what's behind those violations of policies and they're going to continue unless the attitude changes. That's what I'm talking about, not some opinion you have about the way things are going on around Wikipedia. If you have diffs of violations of behavioral policy by Schulz or Souza, please post them. Their conduct hadn't caught my eye, I suspect because they've either done little or nothing in violation of behavioral policies or, just possibly, because it wasn't so blatant that I hadn't noticed it. But I'll assume good faith regarding them until I see reason not to. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think you have done me a favor at Arbcom. I might have presented those diffs myself to show evidence of how frustrated I had become with various biased actions by Lar but you have provided quite a nice cross section of my complaints which also highlight exactly where Lar has gone wrong. If you take off the filter specs that just see my so called bad behavior and read those diffs you will find some quite detailed complaints about Lar with real substance behind them. Polargeo (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Showing how frustrated you are won't help your case against Lar. Presenting your case against Lar is the best thing you can do. The most recent diff I had of your behavior seems to be a bit of a misinterpretation on my part because I see you seem to have withdrawn the barb with your later comments just above them, so if I haven't withdrawn it I will. You would do better to redact those edits if you haven't already, or other people besides me may get confused. I don't have time right now to "take off the filter specs", and frankly it's not very important, because evidence is what counts for 95 percent of this. I've got a slew of diffs to finish looking up before the Arb deadline. I've got work of my own off-Wikipedia with a deadline. Your shenanigans are a burden on me and other editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you can just undo stuff that others have read already then that is not how wikipedia works. You can strike it if you like but I would suggest that simply draws attention. Polargeo (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this case, with it's evidence deadline is different. If I'm wrong, I can put it back with a line through it. I don't see how it should be a problem. Some arb or clerk will tell me if I'm wrong. I'm removing the last diff now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the terrible burden my shenanigans are causing you I will simply say this. I am trying to get another admin to play by the rules I am not trying to ban editors or use my admin tools in any malicious way or any way at all. I am simply trying to make a stand against what I see as bad practice. Sorry if you think this is taking up your valuable time you didn't have to start a smear campaign against me, it was your choice. Polargeo (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say you are trying to get another admin to play by the rules. I assume you mean lar given your constant stream of invective towards him, can you please provide some diff`s were Lar has broken the rules? mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polargeo, your conduct and comments are, to say the least, extremely out of the ordinary. Please try not to be so upset or try not to edit if you can't avoid it. I think you've got your own filter specs on. Please don't post anything on my talk page for the rest of the day. I've added your latest attack to my list. The best thing you could do for yourself right now is redact it. If all you care about is your case against Lar, well, you aren't helping it by ah, doing things extremely out of the ordinary. Bye. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldnt' do that! I was so intent on making sure I didn't put the "t" in there and got the "a" in there that I forgot the "c". Minor variations in common names are often the most difficult ones to get right. What is it that Will Rogers said? Something like, "It isn't the things you don't know, it's the things you're sure you know that are wrong." Something like that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "trouble down the road?" The fairness of Wikipedia is guaranteed by two things. First, transparency, not just the fac that you could find some long-ago conflict between me and Curry, but that anyone will be able to recover the discussion leading to his block. Second, any administrator can always undo a block. This is true of any block, and always will be. Are you concerned that "down the road" somone may unblock Curry? Brother, if "down the road" and administrator feels she has good reason to unblock Curry, well, the should unblock Curry! That is not "trouble," that is the Wikipedia way.
But when she unblocks Curry it won't be because I once was in conflict with him. All active Wikipedians get into conflicts with all sorts of editors and I have never been involved in a conflict that lasted two months without anyone making any edits. Do you really wait until two months have passed witout anyone editing what you wrote, to conclude that there is no longer any conflict? Two months is a lifetime here. If two days passed without a critical comment on the article talk page or a revert, I'd say the conflict is over. Assuming someone was not hospitalized, jailed, or gone on vacation. I have been ediing continuously for over two months without any conflict with this fellow.
What matters, and what ought to matter to all Wikipedians are the facts: in the middle of an edit war, one editor created an article about another. I think that justifies a block. There was a consensus at AN/I for a community ban. The facts are not going to change, no one can dny that one editor created an article about another in the middle of a conflict. But who knows, maybe the sentiments of the community will change "down the road" and the community will no longer consider this sufficint for a ban. That can always happen, and if it does, well, then some admin should undo the block. Hell, if there were strong community support for lifting the block, I'd do it myself. That's how things work here. Slrubenstein | Talk16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry: Something has just come up and I need to be away from the computer for the next 90 minutes or so. I responded at AN/I just now and redacted a couple of phrases. I don't have time right now to carefully read your comment here, but I will later. I still think you're too involved to block, although that doesn't mean I'm assuming bad faith on your part. And as I said, I agree that he should be blocked but want to be sure the block isn't overturned. If my concerns are impractical and others don't agree with them, I can accept that, but I hope other admins don't do this becauase I think it can erode trust. Now I've gotta go. I'm late. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is okay. Trust is based on whether or not the reasons I gave for the block are valid, nothing else. My point is that you say you "want to be sure the block isn't overturned" but you shouldn't want to be sure. I do not want to be sure. Our system works because any admin can undo any block at any time. If there is real community rupport for a ban, no admin will overturn it, she would look like a fool. And if the black is unwarranted, then it really should be overturned. Who knows where the community will be in a couple of months? Look, I am confident that in fact the block will never be overturned. But what "I" want or do not want has nothing to do with it. I don't "want" anyone to be blocked! I don't want Eugene Currie to be blocked! I think everyone should be able to edit Wikipedia at any time. But for the system to work, we have to agree to certain rules and courtesies. The community made it clear that he should be blocked, and as an admin one of my responsibilities is to do the blocking that the community wants. It's my obligation. I saw another admin had blocked him, and had been overturned, I investigated the facts, and once I knew what the facts were it was clear what I had to do. What I want has nothing to do with it. Slrubenstein | Talk17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having several editors reaffirm the block after I raised the point may accomplish what I wanted with an unblock-reblock move by another admin by making it clear there's still a consensus. Let me make my point clearer: If Eugenecurry is unblocked by an admin influenced by the idea that your motives weren't pure, that admin may go easier on him than should be the case. If he ever gets unblocked, I want it to be because it is demanded of him that he very, very clearly understands what's expected. I'm getting uncomfortable with all the "if"s I'm typing here. Maybe I'm being too careful. I just sent you an email, by the way, on a tangential thing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most sensible and thoughtful things I've heard on Wikipedia in a long while. It closely mirrors my own views on why civility is important, although I think you articulated it better than I. Anyhow, just wanted to say I appreciate your input. MastCellTalk05:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. That post and a few others yesterday helped me to clarify my own thinking about this. Your comments have also helped. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have some reasonable points on some issues. I wasn't sure at first. On the issue of my behaviour I have outlined several times why the statement comment on the content not the contributor is poorly understood. The actual quote is "when in doubt comment on ..." in the current example where I have an issue with the personal involvement of a particular admin I should be freely allowed to state my case why that admin's personal actions are motivated by their involvement as long as I am not being abusive. The one situation where I may have come close to the line or even crossed it was when Lar called me "son" he passed it off as humour but the thread was not at all humorous and I responded poorly. I do maintain that if I was in Lar's position I would not have even considered acting as an admin with respect to WMC before CC sanctions even began. When Lar's extremely strong anti WMC advocation is taken into account this just looks bad, very bad. Polargeo (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
where I may have come close to the line Why is it so difficult for people to admit just how egregiously wrong they've been? Read my evidence against you. I'm absolutely positive it doesn't cover everything you've done, but it's enough to show you violated various behavior policies, very blatantly, for some time. Admit it and ask ArbCom for mercy, unless you have some airtight defense that you haven't begun to show. Rather than try to make a case against Lar to me, someone bogged down with work and a huge diff-hunting effort right now, concentrate on evidence. When I'm less busy IRL and the ArbCom evidence deadline is over, I'll be happy to look over what you say, but with the brief attention I can give it now, it looks like excuse making. If you're concerned that Lar has been unfair to William M. Connolley, please review the evidence against William M. Connolley on the evidence page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply blatantly shows how little of the history or situation you actually know. Oh well wikipedia isn't about people who understand what they are talking about just people who shout the loudest. I am damn well aware of what a prickly customer WMC can be, this is not about that though. Polargeo (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh on another note. You will quickly realise I don't give a flying fuck about evidence against me because I am not trying to act in any other way on climate change articles than to get the admin balance right. If I fail to do this but I am banned for life over some technicality then I will have at least been banned trying to do what I think is right. Polargeo (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting into a discussion with you about this on this page and now. I said I'm busy. I am very busy. Please stay off my talk page at least until the evidence deadline passes because you're distracting me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not reasonable to post a detailled description of how I am being disruptive and then to tell me to stay off your talkpgae when I am not being abusive to you. I would on my principles never do the same in return. I have never banned anyone from my own talkpage or ever deleted anyone's comment from my own talkpage. I am personally extremely busy right now with planning a major field season in Antarctica (4 months in a tent starting at the end of October, fieldwork which I am leading). My wife is due to give birth in September to our second child, our first is only 1 year old. I also moved into a house with nothing in it, no kitchen etc. at the end of last year. I am not really sure wikipedia counts as busy. Polargeo (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have plenty of opportunity to defend yourself on the workship page. I'll post proposals there about your behavior after the deadline passes. I'm posting a bit there right now (but not on you, yet). I didn't design the process, but it takes roughly as much time to resolve as a common traffic ticket. As I said in first reply to you (14:16), I'm busy "IRL" -- "in real life". One more post on my talk page, and I'll have to make a complaint about harassment. I mean it. I keep finding this orange bar across the top of my page and wondering if someone else is messaging me. Any admin reading this is invited to warn Polargeo. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is battleground comments and mentality such as you have just displayed, such as you so strongly denounce at arbcom, which drives honest people away from wikipedia. I will not post another comment on your talkpage you can be absolutely sure of that. However, you are always welcome to comment on my own talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no question about truth, such as WP:CALC there can not be a question of WP:V.
Being ignorant of WP:CALC, a quick look (which is really all it takes), is not encouraging. It strikes me that 1. your argument is a "bridge too far" 2. opposition will never buy into it and 3. The extreme effort that it would take in terms of energy and time expended to make a convincing case on this (and I don't think you can) would be better invested resigning this specious assertion of "same subject" into the trash can where it belongs. Therein lies resolution methinks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let it play out. It doesn't take that much time. I'm aware of the considerations you bring up. There are also other considerations. As far as I'm concerned, I see only one reasonable conclusion to the content issue and everything else can pretty quickly be shown to be flawed. People who don't have answers to obvious questions shouldn't be blocking content in the encyclopedia. It's very clear to see what wikilawyering would look like here. I want to see if they wikilawyer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to be away from this for a little while, but I'm curious about your reaction: "It strikes me that [...] your argument is a 'bridge to far'" Are you talking about the merits of the issue or just the possibility of getting consensus with the editors who have commented in the discussion? I don't see any way that WP:CALC can be interpreted as other than applying to anything that is utterly obvious. The other possibility is that my airtight interpretation simply doesn't apply in this particular case. It should be easy to see that I can change my proposal in minor ways so that it very obviously does apply and therefore WP:OR is totally eliminated as a reasonable objection. Once that is done, we have a clear improvement to the article that is either opposed by editors who are hindering improvement of the encyclopedia or the change is implemented and we have an improvement to this article, an improvement I think is valuable. Yes, it's inordinantly difficult, but it's difficult because editors are not accepting what is increasingly obvious. I think that's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. If so, these editors can be sanctioned. (Ultimately, that would make this article and other articles easier to edit in the long run.) It would be a lot easier with your support, and I think it would ultimately benefit the article. The discussions elsewhere on the talk page don't seem to be going anywhere, which means they aren't making the article worse, but also not improving it. At every step along the way, I intend to be reasonable and open to reasonable compromise and keep my mind totally open, but any compromise should not sacrifice policy and the facts if at all possible. The best compromise with editors clearly in the wrong is for those editors to change their minds or withdraw. Any misconduct on the part of editors in this is material for the evidence page of the current ArbCom case, and I intend to give editors no excuses for misbehavior. If editors continue to refuse to see what I think is obvious, I'm going to take it to an RfC, and I expect to win it, hands down. Again, it would be easier if I have your support. I think this will be no less difficult than any of the other talk page discussions, but likely to result in improvement of the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...your argument is a 'bridge to far'" Are you talking about the merits of the issue...
Assuming that by "merits of the issue" you mean your contention that asserting WP:CALC satisfies Wikipedia criteria for introduction of content negating a need for consideration under WP:V for RS, then yes, and my apologies for not making my position more explicitly clear.
I don't see any way that WP:CALC can be interpreted as other than applying to anything that is utterly obvious.
Let's be clear on this as well. I believe your assertion that "other uses" being advanced are correctly identifiable as the products of "snowcloning" and I commend you for both identifying and advancing what is, IMHO, a legitimate (and heretofore unfamiliar to me) assertion. However (and assuming the correctness of your argument that "other uses" are, indeed, the product of "snowcloning"), I remain unconvinced that your suggested, and considerably more broad interpretation and consequent relevance of WP:CALC...
Routine calculations
This policy allows routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources. See here for some conversion templates
...is either supported by the examples introduced to demonstrate what might be introduced as "routine calculations" nor, even if your more broad interpretation were to be valid (and I don't believe it is), would it rise to trump the following...
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
As the remainder of your comments appear to be predicated on the validity of your assertion which I cannot support, I'm really not inclined to comment further on your suggested ramifications of the assertion being upheld.
While I regret my inability to support incorporation of "snowclone" without RS, I remain appreciative of your identifying and defining, IMHO correctly, the nature of that "other use" content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please cut down the size of your evidence section. I am enforcing the limits generously as requested, but your submission is over twice the limit, and most of it is explanation of the evidence itself. Thank you. ~ Amory(u • t • c)03:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I've taken you to task on a couple of occasions today. Notice I do that to fellow cabal members too; e.g. here. And you are of course welcome (encouraged) to tell me when you think I'm getting out of line -- can't promise I'll always agree with you but I'll take your concerns into account. FWIW I tend to do this most to constructive editors whom I think are acting out of character or are capable of doing better. People whom I don't care for, I just try to avoid interacting with. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to remind you that the Workshop page is not the place to introduce more evidence. Keep your comments concise and NOT overlong, as they have been of late. ~ Amory(u • t • c)18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a proposal at ArbCom based on your suggestion at the climate change RfC
I have a concern as to WP integrity in presenting an unbiased treatment of CC and attendant subjects. As you appear to be versed in issues related to WP's treatment of CC and related issues, I thought you might be able to shed some light (briefly, if possible) on the following...
It strikes me as bordering on the almost inexplicable that a separate WP treatment of issues related to "anthropogenic global warming" or "AGW" itself does not exist. A WP search for AGW returns, instead, a disambig page to attendant issues. A WP search for "anthropogenic global warming" returns, instead, a re-direct to "Global Warming". As "AGW" and "Global Warming" are, by no means, synonomous, why does WP appear to further encourage what is, IMHO, the erroneous perception of conflation already too often seen in the public sphere? Assuming this has been addressed before, I'd be interested in your observations on the appropriateness of the status quo WP approach to this "AGW" issue. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really that up on it, either. For some reason the article that seems like it should be labeled "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is labeled "Global warming", and for the broader idea, editors decided to name it "Climate change". I'm not actually sure what the rights or wrongs of it are: I get the impression that some editors didn't want to make the skeptical/denialist positions look like they were anything other than fringe, so they wanted the "Global Warming" name on the AGW subject. I think skeptical/denialist ideas on AGW are somewhere in the neighborhood of fringe or minority (I don't know enough about the subject, or even about how Wikipedia distinguishes between the two to claim which one). Wikipedia seems to treat fringe theories differently from minority theories. To make it further complicated, I don't even know how article titles and decisions about what to make a disambiguation page or a redirect page should reflect the considerations I just mentioned, because you also have to factor in the practical consideration of "What do we think readers will be looking for when they type in these words". "Global warming" is probably what 99 percent of readers will type when they want to learn about AGW. (look here [20] (the hits meter indicates it's more than 99 percent: 954 hits for "Anthropogenic global warming" in May) and here [21] (463,000 hits for "Global Warming" in May -- and get this "This article ranked 72 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org."). For the CC ArbCom case, I looked at some discussion about this, [22] which alludes to some of the conundrums I'm bringing up here. After I read it, I had to conclude that it's above my pay grade. I think readers with just a little persistance will get to an article about the subject they want, so I can live with these titles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your directing me to what appears to be the relevant discussion on the subject of my concern...and it is hardly, IMHO, either fully explored or definitive. That being said (and given the current CC deliberations in progress), it's, perhaps, best tabled to another time, another place. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason there is only the one GW article (which covers AGW) is because the "Science" says there has never been a "Global Warming" before, MWP, north atlantic only :) RWP same, yes it appears for the last few thousand years the earth trundeled along at the same temps, go figure :) mark nutley (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that the term "global warming" has taken on a meaning beyond the simple composite one, and nearly exclusively is used to refer to the current and ongoing (please spare us the "gw stopped in 1998" comment) episode of climate change. Several dictionaries, including the OED and Merriam Webster even define it with explicit reference to greenhouse gases. Do a literature survey (e.g. here) - any other use is a rare exception. Per WP:NAME, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article...Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". And the evidence is that the current episode is mostly due to anthropogenic influences - that's what reliable sources state and we repeat. It's not an a-priory assumption, and we do discuss e.g. solar variations and Svensmark's cosmic rays. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request, I've indefinitely semi'd this page.
You also asked how to prevent search engines picking up on your subpages? Adding __NOINDEX__ at the start of the page should achieve this (though I believe some search engines may not honour it). You can see a relevant example here. TFOWR18:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you can see what you are trying to get me banned from here is a summary of my recent editing of CC articles
17 May [23] I undid Hipocrite’s edit. Looks like I am on the side of the sceptics here.
13 May [24] Added a good reference to back up a sceptic’s qualifications
13 May [25] wikignome improvement of article on sceptic blog
11 May [26] Finished full unselective merge of blog into article on sceptic.
26 April [27] wikignome improvement of article started by Marknutley on a scientist who is critical of the way fellow scientists are handling sceptics
23 April [28] wikignome improvement of article on a sceptic
I have not edited enforcement since 7 June but in my only edits during June (4th and 7th) I ended up agreeing with Lar
7 June [29] Here I agree with The Wordsmiths conclusion (and also that of Lar and LHvU) for that matter.
This is why I consider your desire to have me topic banned for one year as very vindictive. You also want to see me punitively desysopped when all I ever do with my tools is deal with speedy deletion backlogs and block vandal only accounts. The whole thing stikes me as victimisation and I don't understand it. Polargeo (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment that was moved by Lar [30] actually defended Marknutley’s actions. I was less severe than the admins who considered themselves uninvolved. The whole thing ended in a sanction against Marknutley that I completely disagreed with. I had not edited the page and was not involved in the debate so I considered myself uninvolved for the purposes, hence my posting in that section. So it appears that in the situation you outline I was on the sceptic side and not the “cabal” I think you have not looked into this sufficiently. Polargeo (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact LHvU ended it with a punitive block against MN in his usual fashion. LHvU just seems to think punitive blocks are the answer to everything. I believe they just create a bad atmosphere and drive people away from wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well -- maybe. He is a little long-winded. He's also spot on in a lot of things (foreign affairs is his real area of expertise). I haven't been keeping up on climate-change stuff recently, but his acceptance of the science but not the politics strikes me as probably very sound. A lot of commentators I respect -- Instapundit, Ross Douthat, Victor Hanson Davis, refer to him. I assume he's a bit distracted now -- he's preparing to teach up at Bard College for the first time this fall. I've been meaning to read his Special Providence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really impressed with his expertise in foreign affairs - in 2003, he argued that war with Iraq was preferable to continued sanctions because war would be easier on the civilian population ([32]). Of all the absurd, effed-up, proudly irrational justifications for the Iraq War, that has to be in a league of its own.
I don't think he's right about the "collapse" of the "green" movement, either. It seems pretty obvious what's happened. There's been a global economic disaster. That makes governments rethink their commitment to things like environmental initiatives, which are often costly in the short run. It's not surprising that there's less enthusiasm for such proposals.
Interestingly, this is one of the major strategies that was tested by the tobacco companies to forestall regulation. They said, in essence: "OK, maybe secondhand smoke is kinda bad for you. But look at these anti-smoking zealots - they're such zealots!" The idea was to move the focus from a discussion of harsh scientific realities to the perceived lack of social and political sophistication and excess of zeal on the part of their opponents. It actually worked out pretty well for the tobacco companies, so we'll see if that dog hunts again. MastCellTalk05:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me this inane blather about Iraq. His position was about the most intelligent one anybody could have taken at the time. Neither he nor anybody else predicted the incompetence of the Bush administration that early on. The invasion itself was as close to bloodless as any invasion is ever likely to get, but the planning for the occupation was poor, and since it was secret it was hard to know that. He was absolutely right in expecting Saddam, if left in place, would go on committing some of the worst atrocities on the planet (not an exaggeration -- it's something conveniently forgotten by so many of the inane blatherers). You people with a science background keep on expecting politics to be as simple as, say, climate modeling, when it is in reality far more complex. I've been reading some books about long-term political predictions (trying to make predictions for decades and more into the future). They're all hopeless. All they can do is identify some of the proper factors in, say, Turkey's future role in international politics, but not all of the factors, nor how they'll play out. You can't predict an Attaturk or an Erdogan, or a Hitler. You can't predict where oil or ore deposits will be discovered or what scientific and technological discoveries will create higher demand for certain materials. You can't predict which nations will adopt economic policies that, for instance, allowed Korea and Taiwan and now China to surge economically. You can only predict that Turkey will have some factors which pull it to the West and others that pull it toward Islamist ideas, that Germany will continue to be an economic powerhouse, that both nations will have certain national interests and that their cultures will likely continue to exhibit certain strengths. Identifying those factors is the best you can do in politics, and that's why no one is putting forth computer models attempting to predict the political future, unlike climate science. You do recall the inane blather about how we were doomed to fail in Iraq before Bush ignored it and implemented the Surge? That inane blather was the common wisdom of 2006 and early 2007.
Boris complains about him being long-winded here, but he didn't just dismiss the poor politics of the environmentalist movement, he put it in historical context to show where the weaknesses might lie. Note how he pointed out the failure of Prohibition but the success of efforts in recent decades to reduce drunk driving deaths. Successes in politics are more likely to happen in increments attacking specific parts of the problem -- probably because politics is just that complex. The weakness is at the top of the movement, where it intersects with politics, policy and diplomacy. That's in the hands of the leaders of the movement and their allies in elective office and at the heads of various government agencies and departments. And it's obvious as hell that they just suck at it and have for some time.
Do you know what happens when there's a crying need for policy out there and one political party's top officeholders just can't implement that policy because of blundering incompetence? The other political party makes hay out of the situation, grabs the issue and runs with its own solution, getting the job done its way. That happened with Romney and health care in Massachusetts, Bush and McCain both tried to do it with immigration (they couldn't), Nixon did it in several areas, Lyndon Johnson did it with civil rights legislation (mostly when he was in the Senate -- most of the opposition was among Democrats, but Republicans had neither the votes nor the competence to get it passed). Obama made hay about Republicans dropping the torch on fiscal responsibility. There are scads of examples. It wouldn't be surprising for a GOP president to institute a high tax on imported oil, lowering taxes elsewhere to help the medicine go down, and encouraging nuclear power and tax breaks for conservation and energy-efficient home building. Of course, I'm not predicting this, just observing the factors.
Environmental interests will likely have to be alligned with other interests in order for progress to take place. Mead identifies that process happening in India, as an example. That's shrewd analysis. The tobacco lobby finally lost not in Congress but in the courts, and the cost to the public was high -- huge fees to the attorneys, funds set up state by state, which were then largely wasted. Smoking progressively got banned in more places, and it happened piecemeal.
Some environmentalists oppose efforts to increase use of natural gas, even though more widespread use would reduce coal consumption, because the environmental benefits are thought to be only moderate. That indicates that these environmentalists aren't recognizing that they're in no position to reject half a loaf. You don't create political acceleration by banging on the dashboard. Politics goes only so fast. Absent the equivalent of Sept. 11 or December 7, the public won't accept anything drastic. Asking people to trust climate predictions based on data crunched by the likes of the CRU crew won't do it, and anyone who studies the politics of it can see that, as Mead evidently has. damn, that was long-- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue about the Iraq War, but really. You seem to be suggesting that no intelligent person could have realized that it would be a fiasco until after the occupation went bad. That's nonsense. Thinking people from a wide range disciplines recognized that it was a disaster in the making.
The idea that the invasion was great but the occupation was botched seems a bit misguided. It reminds me of the old surgical saying: "The operation was a success, but the patient died." The way the invasion was conducted set the stage for subsequent failures. In particular, the low number of troops initially committed - which was hardly a secret, even at the time - led directly to some of the sequelae that you'd consign to "the occupation". The people who expected this to be easy and simple didn't have a "scientific background". They were the politicians who planned and marketed the invasion - supposedly seasoned masters of realpolitik, people like Rumsfeld and Cheney.
The human-rights angle was the least well-thought-out of the rationales. You can tell it was an afterthought, because it never really entered into the marketing of the war until after the WMDs failed to turn up. Suddenly it was all about Saddam Hussein's human-rights record and the fact that he "gassed his own people". Of course, we had no problem with his human-rights record during the 80s, when Halabja actually occurred - in fact, we were happily shipping him arms and weaponized viruses from the CDC ([34]) to use against the Iranians. So it's a bit of a turnaround to suddenly act as if these atrocities, to which we turned a blind eye or even abetted for a decade, were suddenly a valid casus belli. Saddam Hussein was an awful leader with an absolutely brutal human-rights record - but the world is full of such leaders. If that's the bar for pre-emptive invasion, then why hasn't it come up in, say, Darfur, where an actual recognized genocide is taking place (thus fulfilling criteria for a military intervention on humanitarian grounds)? What was so uniquely awful about Saddam Hussein to warrant a pre-emptive invasion that could not be said of a dozen other world leaders, all of whom could have been deposed by the American military?
Anyhow, my point was mostly that I don't see how someone is credible as an expert on international affairs when they've been so wrong about the invasion - a subject on which so many people were so right. Oh, and I didn't even mention the best part until now: in his article, Mead drew a clear and unequivocal link between Saddam and 9/11, which is sort of the litmus test for ideologically driven dishonesty. MastCellTalk20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(redent)"Ideologically driven dishonesty" is what most of the opposition to the invasion was about: From what we believed at the time -- what opponents as well as supporters of the invasion believed -- Saddam was going to get the bomb. That was the primary reason to invade. Saddam's support for terrorists was a close second, and his frequent atrocities a close third. What was said by the administration to get support for the war was dictated by what was thought necessary to get that support, not necessarily the reasons policy-makers decided we needed to invade. The numbers of troops necessary for the occupation was only one element of the poor planning of the occupation. The main problem was that Rumsfeld thought we should get out quick and didn't seem to have a plan for staying. Demobilizing the Iraqi army was a bigger mistake.
to use against the Iranians. That's not what your source says, and if it were true, it strengthens the reasons for invading. Thinking people from a wide range disciplines recognized that it was a disaster in the making. Not when they were thinking. "Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state." Worth doing. That doesn't mean that a fiasco was predictable. No one was saying that Saddam was going to start a guerrilla campaign that he obviously could not win. No one that I recall was predicting, before the invasion, the terrorist/insurgency that it morphed into. I don't have time to read your other links, now. I did read this Washington Post link [35] It doesn't predict a fiasco, either. This is what Mead wrote about what he thought at the time and after. [36] I'll respond more later. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary. I got just as carried away. (I'm still carried away -- this is a hot-button issue for me, so hot-button that I don't have the patience or the tolerance to edit about it on Wikipedia.) Rather than continue this here (and hasten the day when I have to create an archives page here), I've just sent you an email. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, if you have time to look at something, would you mind sticking Taft Law School on your watchlist? It's another of those unaccredited university articles. I got involved as an admin after a request for page protection, then I saw there was some OR and SYN based on primary sources (plus the links were dead), so I've removed it, but I'd prefer not to get further involved in the editing. I also have real-life issues at the moment that mean I have little time online. If you could help to keep an eye on it, that would be very helpful; there's a discussion here on the talk page. But if you don't have time, no worries. Cheers, SlimVirgintalk|contribs13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in a poet's poetry, you may well be interested in the poetry that appeared at about the same time, in who was winning awards for their poetry at that time and what events were going on related to poetry at that time. That's why these links have been put in many articles, including articles about poems, lists of poets by nationality and in the "Bibliography" or "Works" sections of poet biography articles. The links are relevant to the idea of a work published at a particular time. Poets can be affected by what else is being published, and the year-in-poetry pages give some idea of what possibly may have influenced the poet. Links to "year in" pages have been thought worthwhile on various topics. I suspect these links are more useful to people who know more about poetry, but they are also a way of learning more, because they help readers go on to other articles on similar poets or subjects. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The links go to each year in which Merwin published. Most authors don't publish that much, so there aren't as many links. All the links are in a row on one side of the page and it's pretty easy to ignore them if you want to. But I doubt most people want to. The links are also short. I don't see what it is that's troubling you about them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example: John Berryman was an influence on W. S. Merwin. [37] in 1969 in poetry, Merwin published quite a bit, including a translation of a Spanish-language poet (Pablo Neruda) and an Italian poet. That same year, Berryman won both the Bollingen Prize and the National Book Award for Poetry. The article also mentions other works published that year in the U.S. as well as in Italy and in Spanish. That page also links to previous years. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I see that the deletion discussion of Category:Poetasters was closed as "delete", but that the closing admin noted the support for creating a navigation template.
John, I was on an enforced wikibreak when the deletion of the Poetasters category was proposed. Sorry you had to try to carry the argument almost single-handedly, but the template seems like a good outcome. — ℜob C.aliasᴀʟᴀʀoʙ13:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make head or tail out of that discussion and don't have enough interest in it right now to invest the time it would take to understand it. I'm staying away from the topic area and the associated conflict anyway, but I'm not making a point in doing so, and I'm not ready to make a commitment to do so. It's both eerie and sad that the conflict takes up so much time of so many people for so long, but in saying so I'm not singling out anyone for blame. I find I've been more satisfied and more productive the more I stay away from conflict. Unfortunately, it's sometimes unavoidable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! In this edit to 1998 in poetry, you added several new references, including a ref name of "pims" which doesn't have a source attached to it. I expect you meant one of the others, but I can't tell which one to fix it. Could you please revisit the article and attach that ref name to whichever source you intended? Thanks. - Salamurai (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tower Optical, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
As you might know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, I have a vaguely formed proposal which I've been meaning to work on for some time. In short, it is called TOD (Tour of Duty). It broadly applies to editors and sysops (although separately. The community identifies needs, e.g. uninvolved admins helping out at CC, cleaning up various backlogs (some requiring sysops, some not). Almost by definition, these are areas that are less attractive, and while some pitch in because of a sense of duty, not enough pitch in. Let the community identify and prioritize these areas. Then, an editor or sysop signs up for TOD, which means they agree to be extra vigilant in one of the high priority areas for some period of time, say three months. Editors who complete such a tour of duty will have a definable body of work when it comes to apply to become a sysop, sysops who complete one will earn the undying respect of fellow sysops (I'm serious).
The reason I'd like to push for a broad approach is that every once in a while, i have a hair-brained scheme to urge involvement in some area (Feedback forum, clerking for RfPP, request to move page out of user space), and a legitimate response is "why is your initiative more important than some other task"? That's why I'd like to list all such "dirty jobs" in a central place, get community feedback on the most important one, and give brownie points to editors and sysops who sign up for the dirtiest jobs.
There's a lot of details to work out, but if this plan were in place, it would be relatively simply to add "hanging out as an admin in the CC articles" to the list. Might even be better than an Arbcom construction.--SPhilbrickT12:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Polargeo I'm not quite ready to sign up for that conclusion (although I fully understand your perspective is different). I did expect something more concrete than "The Arbitration Committee thanks administrators ... and encourages other experienced administrators..." --SPhilbrickT12:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Romans did something like this (the name of which I can't remember and which I don't have time to look up now; we have an article on it somewhere, it must be in a category with articles on Roman public offices). I like the idea. I don't think ArbCom will have anything to do with it in terms of supporting it before it receives community support already. I think it would be helpful and I'd support it, but I have no influence. You'd probably need a good amount of support from editors who hang out at the admin elections pages. Perhaps you should get a bunch of them to say, "I would be impressed if an editor coming here to be elected could say he or she had worked in areas listed on the "Difficult But Heroic Jobs" page." Obviously the rest of the editor's history still would have to be looked at. You'd have to figure out who would decide what goes on the "Difficult Jobs" page. I'd support it. I don't see it as solving the problem with self-selected admins at the CC pages, and I'm not at all sure it would help much, but it would be better than nothing. Right now I'm interested in finding out from editors who known something about Arbitration Enforcement on how they think that venue would help or not help or how much it would help or not help keep order on CC pages. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link - both interesting and troubling - interesting because of the relevance, troubling because the process broke down. That said, it seemed to work for years.--SPhilbrickT19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a couple of "P"s at the beginning on some section headers on the CC proposed decision talk page earlier. I would have contacted someone, but I couldn't find who added them to the page. I noticed you readding them just now though, so I figure I would pop over and ask you: what does the "P" signify? NW(Talk)15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I explained it at some point now buried far back in the edit summaries: When you look at the table of contents for the discussion page, what you get is a series of six different numbers, which is very confusing. When a "P" is added (it could be any letter or sign that isn't a number) it breaks up the TOC numbers from the title numbers. That way you can go from the PD page to the PD talk page, remembering the number of the section you want to see comment on, and more easily find it on the talk page's table of contents. Without the "P" it's very confusing (it's probably not terribly easy with the "P" either, but it is certainly much easier). That's why. I think it works with the "P" and doesn't really distract when you're scrolling down. These things are not always easy to explain, but if you bring up a page just before I changed it back and look at the table of contents, I think you'll see the difference. Tell me what you think. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Common housekeeping. Now I see you've restored it. Do you honestly think I was trying to disturb you or make some kind of a point with that edit? Is there a reason why you would want a comment meant as part of discussion outside the "Discussion" section? It amazes me how far your pettiness extends down to the tiniest details. You must have better things to do with your time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't know and may not be the best person to ask. I'm sure you have the diffs and it'd be relatively easy to get more. By the standards used to ban skeptics he has most certainly failed, but I'm not sure if the Arbs really care - they may just set up a process and leave the bannings to that process rather than looking at the past behavior of any more editors (it is easier on them). Of course, there are a lot of people on his side like that - soapboxing, baiting, etc and so it is pretty hard to choose just one editor to point to since there are so many of them. Anyway, if you do that then I think there may be a diff or two in my evidence section. I recall being appalled at one of his article talk page statements where he said something along the lines of, "people believing in dumb things like Jesus" (I think he even called me a liar about that on Boris' talk page at one point). TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a pattern of personal attacks would nail it, but not baiting alone. In the past he's edit warred, but I don't know if he's been doing that more recently. He's been to ArbCom before and I think I recall some kind of admonishment. I'll be looking into it further. Thanks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ah -- I should have looked there first of course. That'll make it much easier. This is what I've been looking at so far (some of which overlaps):
JWB, I don't think there is enough on SCJ alone, though I agree he has been one of the most over-the-top examples. Instead, would it be better to focus on the highly partisan tone of their interactions, bordering on soapboxing? There are several editors who fit in the SCJ mode: Viriditas frequently writes in a manor that strongly suggests partisanship, recently presenting a partisan essay as fact on the PD talk. Recent conflicts with KDP, Tony Sidaway, ChrisO, (probably others) display a strong POV in the way they evaluate sourcing or weight (e.g. the Monckton Abraham mess, in which TS is still arguing that Abraham's presentation was reliable). So I see SCJ as evidence of a larger problem, that some POVs are acceptable here and are allowed to thrive while others are squashed. Perhaps the "confluence" or "faction" is less about coordination and more about the accumulated effects of this uneven treatment of POV.
There's evidence of the double standard in this case. In my view, TGL is no worse in his propensity to express his POV (from the other side), and he's on his way to a significant ban, while similarly partisan editors on the other side are not mentioned. JWB, I believe you already had an evidence section on KDP and others, perhaps it can be expanded to include other POV editors who have not only escaped sanction, but have been emboldened by the presence of so many others like them. Maybe the "faction" started with a seed of a few highly placed editors who selectively favored their own, and it evolved to this. (Recall that highly partisan editors like Raul were once arbitrators here, and Raul pretty much started the Scibaby crusade which has done significant collateral damage to the skeptic POV). ATren (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that there's a double standard because I just haven't had the time to follow the case against TGL, MarkNutley and others on the skeptic side. We already have some indication of what ArbCom will and will likely not do. It creates a kind of profile that ArbCom might apply to other editors if it can be shown they fit. Arbcom will leave any editors with smaller violations to be either reformed by having seen what happens to the worst or be dealt with at Arbitation Enforcement, but if some other editors even got admonishments, that process would be helped along. Intense personal attacks (by William Connolley and Polargeo) are some of the things they will crack down on, and some edit warring and perhaps a pattern of severe BLP nominations (I think ChrisO saw the handwriting on the wall, but we'll have to wait and see -- it seems he had a history with ArbCom and that's something few other editors have). The editors ArbCom has cracked down on all had quite a history of actions that intensify the battleground atmosphere. I think WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:AGF violations, and even WP:CIV violations (like baiting) will help make a case but by themselves (even these three together) won't be enough for ArbCom to act. If it can be shown that the editors were themselves baited, I doubt even a couple of personal attacks is going to be enough for ArbCom. They'll want patterns over time because that means a context of baiting or a situation in which someone gets temporarily swept up in general fighting won't be enough to explain away the motivations.
I think Scjessey and ChrisO fit the bill: Patterns of particularly bad personal behavior that significantly degraded the atmosphere. I've tried to make a case against KDP on the evidence page, but ArbCom hasn't agreed, and I don't see NPA behavior from him. A pattern of edit warring (for which I don't think anyone has gathered evidence) and his BLP violations might fit the bill, but I don't think there's enough evidence yet and it's late. I think there's enough evidence out there on Scjessey, and I've got the lion's share already on this page. I think Tony Sidaway stays away from personal attacks (I would be very surprised if there was enough to show a pattern there -- I can't even think of any personal attacks he's made) and I don't think he's ever going to be considered one of the worst editors on the CC pages. I'm not familiar with Viriditas' edits. Scjessey's history in this area is pretty much unique in one way: He must have less than 200 edits to any of these CC pages, but so many of them are problematic. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much agreed on all of this, particularly your point that it's probably too late to introduce such a broad topic as what I was suggesting. I also agree with your assessment of editors: KDP and TS are always civil so they are less likely to be removed. Viriditas regularly speaks about partisan opinion as if it were fact -- see the hatted-out portion of this section for an example of Viriditas making POV accusations based on the opinions of partisans. He, for example, cites "NASA" as a source when, in fact, the actual text he cited was from a essay by a partisan contained within a NASA-sponsored conference proceeding. That's about 3 degrees removed from what would be considered reliable, let alone "historical fact". There's a lot of this. If someone from the "other side" spouts the same kind of stuff (i.e. "Democrats are trying to change our way of life, it's documented fact -- see this essay from an AEI fellow as proof") they would be quickly removed, but Viriditas (and others) regularly engage in this kind of political soapboxing with no repercussions whatsoever.
But I digress. I agree with your pragmatic decision to focus on SCJ specifically; you are right that his input into this topic area has been almost exclusively negative and inflammatory. Perhaps I will try to dig up some diffs tonight to demonstrate this. ATren (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly don't like being lumped in with Scjessey and Viriditas. Obviously I'm opinionated but I actually edit against my POV and go by the sources to the best of my ability. I can occasionally be uncivil, especially when provoked, but I try not to attack people much - I do point out the actions of some people, usually with diffs, and that seems to have caused a great deal of animosity to come my way from a few people, which can be contagious. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Internet service provider has been connecting and disconnecting service for a while now, sometimes several times in 10 minutes. The company says it's a problem in the area and it won't be fixed until tomorrow (yesterday they said it would be fixed by today). I think I can work around it and should post within the next 1-3 hours. If it gets real bad, I'll try to post from elsewhere. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Dago dazzler, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dago dazzler. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
You're welcome for my time, but I don't intend to give you any more of it unless I'm forced to. I invite anyone who thinks the article should be kept or deleted to go to the AfD page. I won't defend it or !vote there. I won't even look at that page until after it's closed, but if anyone has a question about it, feel free to ask me here. If Wikipedia editors want it, they'll keep it, if not, they won't. I've just spent all the time I intend to spend on this latest antic of yours. ArbCom, take note of Polargeo's action. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw the article and I originally tried to point out that this was a dicdef you went straight to arbcom and complained in order to get me sanctioned, rather than debate the issue. My sending this article to AfD is simply a refusal by myself to be intimidated by you anymore. Polargeo (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I've collapsed the Scjessy discussion thread, please don't add anything more to it (although I don't mind if you strike anything). Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JWB, in your first diff, you identified the BLP as Fred Singer when it was Chris Monckton; in the first Timothy Ball bullet (2007) there is no diff; in the second Timothy Ball bullet, the diff is of the preceding edit. ATren (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this post by Scjessey,[43] I suggest that you don't respond. It will just look like bickering which will reflect poorly on everyone involved. Instead, I ask that you help me with the following request.[44] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going out tonight to see a movie, The American, but it starts late. I've got some time till then. I think I can defend myself without it looking like bickering, so I will respond there. It'll be OK. You'll see. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have been active in discussing some of the recent proposed findings on the PD talk page, I wonder if you might weigh in on the discussion related to my proposed finding about Rd232. Perhaps I have lost objectivity -- two arbs have failed to see anything actionable, whereas it seems very clear cut to me. SandyGeorgia has also weighed in, apparently having some history with this user in another topic area. I plan to provide a few more diffs for some of the comments I made about taunting on talk page and AfD's of blocked user's articles, etc. I have no idea if you have any experience with this editor, or what your opinion may be but I would appreciate another set of eyes on the diffs and the discussion....if you have time. Thanks. Minor4th21:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not father-in-law, mother-in-law. My partner's grandfather didn't survive the war; he died in a gulag in Kamchatka. His widow and his two daughters survived the liquidation of the Bialystok ghetto because they had been exiled to Siberia when the city was under Soviet control. All of their friends were killed by the Nazis. Some them probably died in the synagogue when it was set on fire after it was packed with Jewish ghetto residents.
Sorry. Thank you. I'll change that. I'm a little upset myself by Viriditas' behavior. I've got a more tenuous family connection to it than yours, but that kind of behavior is outrageous. This probably should go to AN/I and I'll post something there if I find him making one more edit along these lines. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We once had a discussion relative to the Dictionary of National Biography and pages for years in literature. So I thought you might be interested in the setting-up of the Wikipedia end of the transcription project for the DNB on Wikisource (moving ahead now, about 30% done over there). It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, and the way to promote creation of articles needed for "years" pages would be to see how to fit writers in under what we are proposing to do with topical lists. There are some ideas on the Talk page and one of the project pages: it's one issue the project needs to draw others into to get a larger scope. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for telling me about that. My time at the moment, on and off Wikipedia, is crowded with things to do, but I'll look into it as soon as I can. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many British poets are missing articles? Redlinked poet names in year-in-poetry pages up to this DNB edition:
1476 in poetry -- Benet Burgh, Parvus Cato; Magnus Cato, collection of maxims written about 1440 and attributed to Dionysius Cato; the book was widely used as an elementary textbook; Latin and English -- REF: Cox, Michael, editor, The Concise Oxford Chronology of English Literature
While I'm aware that you are heavily engaged in other areas, could you please take just a moment to re-format your response in the current dispute resolution section so as to both clearly state your position (assumedly a "NO") and differentiate it from MN's response which preceded it? I'd do it myself but, in the current climate there, I'm reticent to edit, in any way, anyone else's contributions. TIA JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since I don't know you and you don't know me I'd like to ask you a question so I can clarify things better. Of course you don't have to answer me and I promise I won't hold it against you. What I'm trying to figure out is if there is any history between you and KimDabelsteinPetersen. The reason I ask is of course I've seen the two of you interact on the PD talk page but I was just looking at different arbitrator's talk pages to see what was going on and I saw you and him interacting there. So to my question, what is the history here because I honestly don't know and would like to? I am going to him next to ask the same thing. It's hard, not knowing the editors, to understand what they are talking about. Like I said you don't have to respond and there will be no hard feelings if you decide not to. Please use the talkback template or just a note saying you responded at my talk page so I don't miss it. I asked this of KDP too (this is a copy/paste with just the name above changed). I would also like if you would answer too. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk18:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "history" to speak of other than what's already on the evidence page. I think you're looking for excuses for bad conduct on the part of some editors. I don't think that's the right approach. The right approach is to evaluate the evidence. Looking at circumstances surrounding the evidence is fine, but you shouldn't go so far that you're coming up with excuses. That's the beauty of having a pattern of conduct, especially over time and with different editors and different circumstances -- there are fewer opportunities for making excuses. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your defense of me at the CC arb case, on the PD page. Thanks for your efforts. ATren (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You asked at the Proposed Decision talk page what the problem was with this diff. Obviously I can't speak for the arbitrators, but speaking personally I'll share the impression it left with me, in case it's a useful outside perspective on how you've been coming across in some of your comments. You said:
If they don't do that then ignore them and go for another admin who knows how to do it.THAT is how the ArbCom decision will be gamed. We just have to wait for editors to find the right POV-crazed and/or uninihibited administrator. Or does someone have the nerve to tell us all that this won't happen? Then we'll need a consensus at A/E or somewhere to overturn the biased move as admins smugly indicate to the rest of us that no admin would ever make an admin move because of bias in the topic area. This is the future of the climate change articles. This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future.
It seems like if you boiled this statement down to the bare gist of what you were trying to say, it would be something like: "I worry that it will be too easy to play the refs, if it's much easier to find a (possibly biased) admin willing to block than to find a consensus of admins to overturn the block." That, by itself, is a valid concern that anyone in the dispute (on any side) could reasonably have.
The rest of the words you wrote were basically used to insulate your prediction from disagreement. You asserted that the decision "will" be gamed, that it would take "nerve" to dispute that it will, that this "is" the future, and that you will be saying "I told you so." By implication, nobody can take a contrary position in good faith (rather, it would take "nerve"), and if they do disagree then at some point in the future you will be sure to point out how you were right and they were wrong. I think that you can see how this would annoy those who were involved in the discussion, since I'm sure you would be annoyed by someone from the "other" side exhibiting a similar attitude. And Shell is right to characterize it as "not productive", since how can one have a productive dialogue with someone who has signaled that their position is indisputable, their prediction inevitable, and their intention to gloat about it when proven right?
I'm writing this here because I'm speaking to you, not the whole audience at the PD talk page, and because I think you're open to critiques of your approach when it comes from someone you don't already distrust. I mean no malice by this criticism, but offer it hoping it informs your future interactions. Cheers, alanyst/talk/03:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alanyst, I think you are one of the most level-headed, best-intentioned and sharpest editors on Wikipedia. That sounds like a lead-in to a "but ..." and I wish it were, but I think you've got several good points there. It's almost midnight here and I need to sleep on this and respond tomorrow. I can say right off the bat though that you've actually thought through the implications of my comment more than I ever did: I didn't realize I was saying all that. (Actually, given the way I worded that, it's going to take some caveats before I could say "I told you so" because I'd then be identifying some admin as "POV-crazed".) The enforcement mechanism after the ArbCom case is over is something I've been very worried about for some time. I discussed it back in December when there was an arbitration request on this (I should dig up the diff). I discussed it again at the beginning of this case on the workshop page. I thought ArbCom dismissed my concerns without much evidence that they'd thought it through and I wanted to get their attention. I'll think about it more and respond more later. Thanks for helping me to think through it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a word to say thanks for carefully considering what I assume is neutral, and certainly is constructive, criticism. John, I realise some things I said had the unintended effect of annoying you and leading you to think I wanted to provoke you. I assume it's evident to others that I've no intention of either, but there's still that unresolved bad blood between us that cannot help going forward.
Kudos to you for your graceful response to honest criticism. I want to say sorry for the pain my comments have caused. I could have been more understanding in the first instance. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like very much to end our years-long feud. We have needled and bothered each other for too long, and I want to make a genuine effort to draw a line under it and act as if none of it ever happened. We don't agree on much, but it is clear that we both love Wikipedia and we both want the project to succeed. I would rather move forward than look back, but I am willing to admit that I have not always given you the benefit of the doubt when we have clashed over things. For these assumptions of bad faith, I apologize.
Wikipedia is a big project, but not so big that we won't come across each other from time to time. I would like to think that when that happens, we will be able to work together productively. I have seen some of the work you have done in areas where we have not locked horns, and I have been very impressed. I hope that you will continue to work on these positive contributions and not let process-related stuff distract you.
I was absolutely incensed with the Finding of Fact you filed against me in this never-ending CC-related ArbCom case. I feel that much of the commentary you included with the various diffs presented was unfair and misleading, but not all of it. I have made some errors of judgement, and you were right to point these out. Nevertheless, at the time I reacted emotionally and dug myself into a deeper hole. I'll admit that I found the whole thing deeply upsetting, so I decided to withdraw from the topic completely and try to put it behind me. I continue to monitor the case pages only because I want to see how it is all going to turn out.
When I saw that a Finding of Fact was filed against you, my first thought was "payback is a bitch". But some of the things being said about you and your actions have not been fair, and it reminded me of some of the things said about me. While it would be fair to say you haven't always behaved like a saint, some of the accusations being made against you seem vague and unsubstantiated. Few of them seem related to the topic of climate change, so I don't understand why a topic ban is being considered. Some of the other editors listed on the PD page seem to be in a similar boat.
And it was this that got me thinking about our "feud". It's not doing either of us any good, and some of the stuff that has taken place while it has been going on is now being used against us. I would like to put it behind us, and I hope you will accept my olive branch in good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that kind message. I'm glad you feel that way, and I'd like nothing better than to put all this behind us. I really don't want to cause you grief. I laughed when I saw this, by the way. [45]
In addition to a renovation project at my home this week, on Tuesday we learned the furnace needed to be replaced, so my time has been limited for Wikipedia. At this point, I expect to be done with edits at the CC case in 24 hours. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no doubt you're aware of the evidence subpages remedy in the climate change case. I see you requested deletion of your old evidence subpage, but as you're going to be under a R3 ban this new edit to your userpage looks rather ominous. Since you're going to be out of the area, it's a bit worrying that you don't seem to intend to let it just recede in your rear view mirror. --TS13:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the fat lady sings with support for closing the case 24 hours after NYB's suggestion, we've got, I think, about 8 hours to go. Am I correct? Then I think we have 24 hours to get rid of evidence pages, am I correct? If I'm wrong in either of these, please tell me, because I don't intend to keep the page past the allotted time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I plan to place my sanction as a banner on my user page. If my work in that area got me banned, especially given how lopsided the decision was, then I'm damn proud of the ban and I will display it as a sort of "whistleblower's" barnstar. But anyway, nice work trying to fix this mess, and happy editing going forward. ATren (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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);
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;
John, I had noticed your work before, but had not put two and two together and seen that the guy on pound was the same guy working on Vermeer. You gave me a lenghty explination yeah, and I wont match it except to say, I think superfilious links blue devalue the thing, and I am usually sparing to the point of spartan. I started my wiki time with years in art pages, but I dont think they should be shoe horned. But thats for me a largey astethic difference, easily set aside, because your work on "Diana and Her Companions" is grand. My openion as to what is linked on the Pound page matters as muich as nothing, so knock your self out if you wish. Though, either way, I'll lend a hand with Diana. Ceoil (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you incorporate User:JohnWBarber/Draft/The Girl with the Wineglass into The Wine Glass. Ta. ~
I'll try to fit it in Sunday or if I have a moment on Saturday. My life has suddenly taken an extremely busy turn, which may last for some time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:
3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.
I wouldn't mention it except that you are in the process of posting about 20 notices—the last sentence of the notice should read "Your ability", rather that "You're". (Since I'm recusing, I figured I should make some useful contribution, at least.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wise guy! This from a member of a committee that uses "incivil" and various other barbarities in its official language. How am I supposed to maintain high dudgeon when you're correcting my "yours"? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind comment. I tend to shy away from FA and GA, and I don't have much time for much of anything on Wikipedia at present, so I probably won't be taking it to GA. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
