User talk:2over0

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

nudge time

[1] Try and put some time aside to get this sorted out :)

I notice that WMC often removes others' comments from his talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That is about enough of that, if you please. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

---

so he can get the last word in discussions. I don't suppose that violates his incivility probation? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh nm, you already said that it applies to usertalk. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that 2over0's statement doesn't prohibit WMC from removing comments from his own talk page. Such a prohibition would be without precedent, and would to boot be far too readily gameable should editors wish to harrass him. We let blocked vandals remove content from their talk pages; the purpose of a user talk page is to facilitate communication with that user, not to act as a repository of disputes, scarlet letters, or bickering. Editors who find that their comments on WMC's talk are uwelcome should bring any significant concerns to an appropriate forum — but 'WMC doesn't want to talk to me' isn't an actionable problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I quote, "[User:William M. Connolley]] is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done." Connolley has a long habit of deleting other people's comments on his talk page, people who are trying to engage him civily, and he appears to be doing this either to get in the last word or provoke them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile taking this to WP:AN for outside opinions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No need for that yet; his warning was given and the language was clear. The only question is whether or not the rules apply to WMC or if the requirements will be changed so they retroactively don't apply to his behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust, please assume good faith. Yes, the lack of action regarding WMC's misconduct is unfortunate, but continually harping about it is only going to alienate your fellow editors. I suggest that someone who is familiar/comfortable with filing such a request simply do so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors can remove what they want from their talk pages. I don't think his restriction changes that. ATren (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking at first but then I looked at talk page guidelines and it specifically mentions user talk pages and the wording in the probation does not specifically state article talk pages. It appears that WMC has violated the letter of his probation. The problem that I am finding is whether this violates the spirit of the probation. Did the terms of his probation mean to include all talk pages or just article talk pages? I don't know. That's why someone should bring this up to the admins and find out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the warning specifically mentions that it applies to user talk pages. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But even blocked users are given editorial control of their own talk. I don't think it's a violation, and even if it were, I don't think it's worth pursuing, . ATren (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Even blocked users can have their talk pages protected from editting. I guess we'll see if WMC's warning will be applied or rewritten/reinterpreted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Both you and AQFN seem to think that clarification from the admin community is needed. Instead of continuing to use 2/0's talk page as a forum it would be better for you to pose it at the appropriate venue (probably WP:AN). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think "clarification" is needed - I think action is needed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this is NOT a personal vendetta against a fellow editor. If WMC didn't honestly realize he was violating the terms of his probation, I have an ethical problem with any action being taken against him. We're supposed to assume good faith here. However, I don't see anything wrong with asking for clarification so we know going forward whether this is allowed or not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly seems that way (while we are on the subject of deleting comments). I restored the comment because no individual was named, and thus no violation took place. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> I personally think it is clear that he has already violated the terms of his probation due to his other actions and clearly uncivil statements, but unfortunately there is a "subjective" factor to those comments, which apparently translates into inaction. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of User talk:William M. Connolley is to communicate with that user and that any removed posts remain in the archive, I do not think that such removals violate the intention of the prohibition. I have asked the other two administrators who commented there if they disagree with this view or would object to an amendment to the formal wording indicating such. Thank you for bringing this up, as the matter should have been considered before the close was implemented. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It does say "editing others' talkpage.." which seems to preclude any restriction on editing his own tp, no? JPatterson (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't say "others" talkpages - you appear to be misreading it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically (part of it) says, "The area of probation is to be interpreted to include anywhere that a topic related to or a dispute stemming from climate change is being discussed, including but not limited to articletalk, usertalk, and WP and WT namespaces." You appear to have been confused by the section that says, "User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done; he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos." TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In short, you left out the word "posts" when quoting the restriction - which gives it an entirely different meaning. Please be more careful in the future. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I think at the very least this should be clarified to prevent him from summarily deleting other people's comments. Editors are still trying to communicate with him about his behavior and he is refusing all attempts at communication. Obviously harassment shouldn't be allowed, but if someone refuses to recognize behavioral problems then they will never try to fix them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread is an excellent example of why users are allowed to remove posts from their talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am missing something surely? WMC's own talk page is not subject to probation because it is not the talk page of a climate change article. His specific bit says "WMC is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation". which does not apply to his talk page because it is not a page subject to this probation. Is there any good faith argument for saying his own talk page is part of the climate change probation (even interpreted widely)? If not we are wasting time here... --BozMo talk 21:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you missed this, I'll post it again, his probation says, ""The area of probation is to be interpreted to include anywhere that a topic related to or a dispute stemming from climate change is being discussed, including but not limited to articletalk, usertalk, and WP and WT namespaces." The probation also specifically says that guidelines which would normally allow him to redact/delete/archive posts do not apply to him - and those rules cover the latitude normally given to one's own talkspace. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is silly, and reflects badly on those making the complaint. Verbal chat 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shhh! Don't tell them William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it reflects badly when people constantly delete part of a conversation in order to make it look like they got the last word due to their oh-so-amazing arguments. I have no problem with you deleting/archiving entire conversations - that would be the mature thing to do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This kind of stuff? [2] - you're right, it is terribly immature William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> I was thinking more along the lines of this thisthisand this (all over the last day). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I should note, the diff WMC posted was of my removal of his trolling at my talkpage. He was clearly scrummming for a fight, so I removed it as the trolling it was. UnitAnode 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Which confirms the very sensible right of each editor to remove any comments from their own talk page, no matter how it looks to outsiders, and also displays remarkable bad faith. Accusations of trolling do rather tend to resemble "scrummming for a fight", a more polite edit summary would have made removal of the post unremarkable. Not always attainable, but politeness pays. . . dave souza, talk 09:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Um, things went off into the weeds on my talk too, a bit anyway. I just popped by here to say I think you should go ahead and make the clarification you were suggesting, if you hadn't already, to make it clear that this didn't apply to WMC's own talk page. ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

[3] @ global warming controversy, please take a look, you have guys removing an entire section on the basis they do not like one of the refs, why they are unable to remove a ref and feel the need to remove an antire section of good faith contributions is beyond me. --mark nutley (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected for two days by NuclearWarfare, now. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there 2over0, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:2over0. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk Global Warming

Would you please ask WMC to change his post here [4] I did ask him but all he did was fix a typo :( There is no need for the sarcastic digs at wattsupwiththat or Joe d'Aleo. Thanks --mark nutley (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If that discussion goes further off the rails in the next day or two, please collapse it. That could be phrased more productively, but there might be something there for the Responses section, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Filter

Hi!

Could you take a look at the content of the dispute at Great Filter? Robin Hanson, the prof who developed this hypothesis, has written quite a few articles about the future of technology and humanity, is a member of the Future of Humanity Institute, and so on. This makes him a futurist, by definition, and is very well supported by a large number and variety of reliable sources. So we should call him a futurist, in the view of 2 of the 3 editors working on this article. The remaining editor does not like this at all, and insists it is OR, or interpretation, etc. This seems very odd to me, since WP:OR explicitly states

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly."

To the two of us, this seems exactly what we are doing, and your opinion on this issue would be most helpful.

Also, you locked the article in the anti-concensus state, in so far as 2 vs 1 can be described as concensus. This induces a practical problem, as the remaining editor is now perfectly happy with the locked state, has no reason to try to resolve this issue, and has indeed stopped discussing. Two things might help here - perhaps after half a week or so, swap it to the concensus state, or better yet, look at the arguments in addition to the reverts - perhaps you could add your voice on the side of reason, as you see it.

Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this looks like a job for Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I know I protected The Wrong Version, but if there is a consensus that the other version is better, please request unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some status...

Re: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC I think that one's baked. All the involved admins seem to have come to rest, and it's closable with the sanction wording you drafted. Do you want to do the honors?

Re: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#142.68.95.166.2C_142.68.92.131 I have your CU results for you, what to do next? I dunno. Try the rangeblock, maybe, but write a really good log entry so that any anons know what to do... as per usual. Up to you. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya apparently our mails crossed on that first one. :) Advise if you need more CU work on the latter. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great mimes and all that. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your debt

DuKu (talk · contribs) seems to have taken your restriction on me as license to break 3RR on ExxonMobil. Perhaps you might care to remind him, forcefully, of the rules, and spare me the trouble of putting in a 3RR report (it would be too much to expect Lar to bother, I realise) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight

I have made a proposal for unblocking this user on his talk page. Please read it and give your feedback. Thanks. Trusilver 09:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at User talk:Trusilver#GoRight's unblock conditions. While a reasonable first stab, I am not confident that the proposed probation terms would resolve the central issues with GoRight's conduct and would discourage accepting the terms as written. Perhaps you could recommend appropriate wording? A 2009 arbitration case included the following remedy; I think that essentially identical wording would do well here:

[Editor] is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.

The condition at the end still permits the editor to participate in AfD (MfD, IfD, CfD...), RfA, ArbCom elections, and the like. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate lock

I don't know how close you've been following this but the recent flair-up was instigated by this massive re-write which, while done in a good-faith attempt to improve the article, was done without discussion much less consensus. You've now locked in this version thereby rewarding bad behavior and removing some sections about which hard fought consensus had been achieved. Prior to the re-write, with the exception of the drive-bys, we were working quite collaboratively and making progress. I think the fair thing to do would be to rv to the original and see if we can't continue to make progress from there. JPatterson (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Without making any comments on which version should or shouldn't be reverted to - WP:WRONG addresses this quite adequately - I wish to note that these spurious claims of "consensus" are becoming rather tiresome William M. Connolley (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

spurious claims of "consensus" - now there is something on which I believe we all can agree. This is not a rant at either of you particularly, but far too often I see editors making quick claims of consensus when a more accurate assessment might be in the last four hours, two editors argued yes, one raised a minor point for discussion, and one argued no but we can ignore that one because consensus is not unanimity. Consensus is not a game like taking a product survey with the halting condition of having your product ahead in the polls. It is agreeing to work together to write the best encyclopedic summary of how the relevant experts have described a topic. Okay, side rant over.

As for Nightmote and Hipocrite's rewrite, there are times when it is appropriate to revert through protection, but I do not believe that this is one of them. There is currently a discussion at the talkpage dealing with this point; if consensus emerges from that discussion in the next day and a half that the old version was better or should be used as the basis for point-by-point discussions, then I or anyone responding to {{editprotected}} can change it then. If nothing else, I will admit to being pleased to see editors working and expressing opinions together with those they traditionally argue against. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your self-describe rant above: It's a broad swipe that somehow still manages to miss the mark. This is constructive, collaborative editing by any stretch of the definition- collaboration that WMC took a minimal part in except to add unbridled and unsupported negativity. Those involved hammered out a compromise that those involved could live with. Are you contending that after all that, for a single editor to re-remove the entire section is conducive to the consensus building process? JPatterson (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Hey 2/0, I think perhaps the edit history made it seem as though there was a large edit war when there wasn't. Oren0 reinserted the old "Code and documentation" section that had resulted from consensus built in the "Long/Short/Very Short" section on the talk, which was then reverted by Scjessey for having broken refs (Scjessey didn't speak against the addition itself), at which point I fixed the refs myself and put it back. That was all well and good (though I suppose it could have seemed ominous). But then WMC removed the section, for the third time and for his old reasons (over and against WP:V). The relevant diffs can be found here:

1. Removes code section, same rationale, with no consensus
2. Removes code section, same rationale, with no consensus
3. Removes code section

Would you consider removing the content lock in place of sanctions on WMC for this disruptive behavior? --Heyitspeter (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I did see that, but thank you for presenting you point so clearly; it is much appreciated. There remains a bare bones coverage of the point in the article, which I think changes the context of the most recent diff. I read Scjessey's edit summary as preferring discussion but not outright objecting to your later fixed replacement. Archive 24 and the present page indicate broad agreement that that issue in particular and the article as a whole focus too much on minutia at the expense of more encyclopedic treatment of the topic. I do not think that any of the recent edits to that article rise to the level of disruptive editing against consensus, though I admit to some surprise at Nightmote and Hipocrite's rewrite. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just note that while the context for the most recent diff could perhaps be interpreted as different in some sense (as you note), according to WMC it was not. His edit summary read: asbefore: this section is broken. Please consider that in going over these edits again. Any diff can be rationalized with enough effort, but they should be taken on their own terms.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently AQFK [sic] filed a request over these edits, anyway. --Heyitspeter (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that page had been awfully quiet today - thanks for the heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, good luck.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident protection

Could you consider taking this off early? I'd like to add a bunch of images, and replce the emails section with the summary that has reasonable acclaim (and no dissent), and input from both "sides." It's a shame that some editors don't get it - perhaps you should ban them from the article? All of them. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. The particular issue that led to protection is being treated at the talkpage and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#William M. Connolley 2. Please be mindful of the restrictions in the editnotice and be especially careful in interpreting WP:consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop abusing your admin tools

It is inappropriate for you to continue to abuse your tools to go after one side of the AGW dispute and to promote a particular version of article content. Your full protection after William's edit warring to remove a section is another example of your inappropriate involvement.

Please stop abusing your position of trust within this community to promote a particular point of view that you happen to agree with. This is not appropriate behavior. I understand that you may have strong opinions on the issue of Global Warming, but that's all the more reason you need to allow uninvolved admins to deal with the situation. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered, three threads up: #Climategate lock. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is particular flare up is being discussed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#William M. Connolley 2. See also: [5]. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

re Admins Noticeboard/Climate Change

Hi. I would be grateful if you would run your eye over Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#Initial conclusions, regarding a dispute over a section in the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. Can you see if there is any fault in my logic, and its application, or a misrepresentation of other editors actions or my understanding of policy. Although I would be grateful if you would note if you concur with my findings, at that page, I would understand if you didn't. I would also be grateful if you would note any dissent or disquiet in regard to my comments, again at that page. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, thank you for going into the history of that article so carefully - having done it myself, you have my sympathies. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I added some clarifications of the timeline to LessHeard vanU's initial conclusions section. I think NigelJ's implementation of the re-write is a key piece of the puzzle that both you and he seemed to have missed. Thanks for your efforts here. JPatterson (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another unreleated issue on the same page. In justifying WMC's removal of the section you wrote "As most of the material remained, however, I read this as a minor issue of presentation, not a fundamental one of edit warring.". Huh? He removed the entire section. Could you clarify your meaning? JPatterson (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As usual, the thread is spiralling off into irrelevance. But I hope you've noticed I've counted and found that "out" is in a majority. While it doesn't prove consensus to remove, it destroys the notion that there was consensus to keep William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You may also note my comment that the issue is currently moot, since after my long promised and agreed split of the section to a new detailed article, another editor has sensibly made a concise WP:SUMMARY on the main article which doesn't get into this awkward and poorly sourced detail. Climatic Research Unit documents currently includes the least worst version, hope we can improve it there. Oops, spoke to soon. While I was discussing this, CoM was editing the article and has restored the battleground.[6] . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Loophole?

Now that Dave S. has split the article from which I am banned, I suppose one could argue that I am free to edit in the fork. I've decided not to make such an argument and sit out the rest of my ban. Clarification on this though might be appropriate in case it should come up in the future on a longer ban. Regards. JPatterson (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that in general article bans should be interpreted conservatively, and any such extension would require formal extension either with the imposing admin or at WP:GS/CC/RE. With a direct spinout article, I expect that it would probably be covered, but notice would be required of that interpretation before any edit could be deemed actionable. As you are willing to just wait the week without inflaming the drama I will not cogitate on it further. I would not want to find a situation where someone proposed that adding material to some related article would be covered by an article ban - extending an article ban to a topic ban would require a new action. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Though I wasn't asked to comment here, I'd like to. It has been my hope that the spin-off article will allow the parent article to be a more focused discussion on the stolen UEA/CRU documents. To my (often clouded) mind, the UEA/CRU scandal is a single event involving global entities like IPCC, the Copenhagen Conference, and various national bodies. The actual emails and code are much more pedestrian, and an article on that topic would seem to invite comments from more obscure parties such as universities, college professors, and magazine editors. I'm sincerely hoping that the spin-off article will be more free-wheeling and allow editors on both sides of the debate the opportunity to clearly outline why these documents are (or are not) significant. I believe that spirited debate in that space will produce a lean, tough, well-sourced article. Nightmote (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Content restriction violation

I wanted to point out that this edit broke the content restriction. I've asked the editor to self-revert (here), but figure I should let you know in case of resistance as you're the protecting admin.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I read that as a normal edit and a normal revert, but any restriction so open to interpretation is not serving its intended purpose. WP:Edit warring will be strictly interpreted, but Wikipedia is really not a good environment for trying to establish too many arcane rules. I wanted an unambiguous metric, but interfering with article development really would be an abuse of the mop'n'bucket. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just this at the talkpage to that article. Thanks for pursuing this with me.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Usernames

2^0, I have replied to your comment. If you'd like to institute a username policy on when and in which cases short forms and abbreviations are allowable, the place do that is the Village Pump.

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point or attempt to engage in arbitrary enforcement actions to push your point of view by targeting editors you disagree with on content issues. You also need to refrain from admin involvement on the AGW articles because of your repeated refusal to enforce civility and edit warring policies violations on William, while going after other editors on dubious, arbitrary and nebulous assertions per your personal whims. That's not how things are done here and your abusive behavior has been very disruptive. If you have contructive input on how the AGW content can be improved, please offer up your ideas at the appropriate venues. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, ChildofMidnight. Your phrasing above, "don't...engage in arbitrary enforcement actions to push your point of view by targeting editors you disagree with on content issues" looks like an allegation that 2over1 has a direct conflict of interest in his enforcement. Do I read you correctly? --TS 18:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted repeatedly by several editors here and elsewhere, 2^0 has repeatedly disrupted legitimate requests for enforcement actions needed to address William's incivility, edit warring, and wikilawyering. He's also gone after editors trying in good faith to have notable criticicisms and controversies included in the encyclopedia to balance the global warming science and political coverage. This pattern of biased enforcement actions clearly establishes an inappropriate approach to mediating the content dispute. It is not constructive or acceptable, and it needs to stop. I have no doubt that 2^0 has strong opinions on global warming issues, and he may well believe that it's important to quash opinions and viewpoints he considers fringe. But that's not his role as an administrator and it's inconsitent with our policies and procedures. As I've noted above, he's welcome to make his case in the relevant discussions, but it's ceratinly not okay for him to abuse his admin tools in order to push his personal perspectives and opinions of the science and political issues involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those things are true, but if you really believe them, then you should open an WP:RFC/U. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your implied threat on my talk page

I believe these are important issues that have a direct bearing in the tone and POV of the article, and I resent the implied threat of your note. I would like to know if you have sent similar notes to the AGW True Believers.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Greenhouse effect

I've added the probation notice to Talk:Greenhouse effect. Seems it was missed and you have warned Chicco3 regarding their edits there. Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I should have checked that - thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A brief request ...

A few of us have started a proposal to try and resolves the never ending stream of rename requests for Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and are working behind the scenes to gather support for it here. TGL had been mentioned by ChrisO as someone who might be useful to have on board with the proposal. Given his recent topic ban would you be willing to make an exception to allow him to simply endorse this proposal (if he is so inclined)? Every show of faith in the proposal will help to bring others on board. Thanks for your consideration. --GoRight (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The whole point of a topic ban is that the standard invitation to edit this page does not apply. Their contributions have been disruptive, and it is best to make a clean break.

Thank you for working on this proposal - anything that calms that article down has my full support. I am not sure, though, why the discussion is at your talkpage. Is this a hash out some ideas before presenting a solid proposal at articletalk discussion? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making things up - do you feel that your credibility is too high (I can assure you it isn't :-)? The ban is clearly supportable. Indeed, it has wide support. Unilateral is irrelevant - what were you expecting, some kind of caring, sharing bilateral ban that TGL would agree to? The point is that post imposition none of the watching admins have complained, nor have those like you who defend TGL chosen to bring it up for review elsewhere. For the obvious reason William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The preceding comment is in reply to this post removed (presumably) by the author. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So he says [7]. Why as a anon, we may never know. Why total removal rather than the more obvious striking, we may never know William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh, I smell a conspiracy! ATren (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

lanthanide to lanthanoid page move

Please see this discussion regarding the old page move of lanthanide to lanthanoid. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How to Proceed?

Could you take a quick look at this WP:Coatrack. I've outlined numerous BLP issues here. After getting no responses, I made the edits to remove the objectionable material in a series of edits starting here. (I did it in a series so each rationale could be summarized). The changes were reverted in mass without discussion here. Requested self-revert on users talk page. Non-responsive so I reverted and filled a BLP notice here. My changes we're reverted again here, again with no attempt to justify the sourcing as required by WP:BLP. I've tagged the article {BLP dispute}, and add the blp warning template to the users talk page.

The issue with sourcing in this article should be completely non-controversial. It is using primary sourced data to draw conclusions and strings multiple sources together to synthesize points not made explicitly in any. References to wikilinks, blogs and non-existing web pages abound. Not sure where to go from here. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never actually edited Michael Behe, but I consider myself involved on all intelligent design related topics for the purposes of WP:INVOLVED; please take this as the comment of an editor, not an administrator. The topic area of pseudoscience is also under article probation, though the terms are slightly different than those for climate change; it should be listed at WP:GS (let me know ifn not so I can track it down and fix that).

There will always be a tension on these BLPs between a credulous WP:SPS recounting their ideas and a long debunking digression. On the gripping hand, I think the best approach is to focus exclusively on independent reliable coverage - if nobody has commented on an idea except a few bloggers, it should not be mentioned in the article at all. With Behe, the NCSE and similar luminaries have gotten involved, so it is easy to source statements along the lines of irreducible complexity is not taken seriously by the biology community.

As for actual advice, you are already active at the talkpage and BLP/N, which should lead to a nice solid consensus. There is also a WikiProject for Intelligent Design where you could post to attract more interested editors, but as that is a heavily monitored article I doubt that that should be necessary. On a political note, I usually find that whatever Aunt Entropy says is fair and well-considered. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLP recently? In substance and tone I don't see the slightest hint of wiggle room there. Editors can't just reach a consensus to ignore this policy can they? I've detailed the issues I've identified here. Note that these are not POV or even scientific concerns (I am cvertain you and I are in agreement about these things), they are clear violations of WP:BLP, don't you agree? JPatterson (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

1. That is correct: local consensus cannot override policy. If there is a good faith disagreement regarding whether or not a policy is being properly applied, follow the articletalk→noticeboard→RFC branches of the dispute resolution tree. If the disagreement more concerns policy being disregarded, follow the articletalk→usertalk→AN/I branches.
2. I have a strong opinion about intelligent design. If I were to write the article, it would be highly prone to NPOV and OR violations. I prefer to confine my editing to areas I find less stressful. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW- I didn't get any probation-like warnings or templates or anything when I edited the Behe article so if you think there should be, it might be an issue. JPatterson (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New subject: Is this cool? Also, these ([8] [9]) were not helpful. JPatterson (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The application and meaning of notifications is one of the differences. If I recall the timeline correctly, the pseudoscience probation was enacted not too long after the homeopathy probation. In the latter, members of each "side" of the debate apparently decided that it would be cute to template each other in an attempt to hasten mutual banning. This ended up being disruptive. The pseudoscience probation requires perceived misbehaviour→template placed by WP:UNINVOLVED administrator with specific examples and advice for improvement→misbehaviour→sanction. You are not on notice or anything, that was just a friendly heads up. A few years on, with the climate change probation the community decided to go with the let everyone know that the editing environment here is not the most pleasant that Wikipedia has to offer method. Currently, TS is shouldering the vast majority of that burden. If you or anyone else watching this page are interested in an automated solution, there is some discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log - 2/0 (cont.) 22:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider clarifying and adding detail to your thread at User talk:ScienceApologist in light of the notice at the top of their page. On the bright side, I was previously only aware of definition 3 at wikt:comport - neato. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC breaking his parole

[10] calls an editor malicious.

[11] Calls the same editor malicious again.

[12] Edits my post (i forgot to sign) in contravention of earlier enforcement action. And of course saying he does not care about his current enforcement.

Please give him a topic ban or should i do a request for enforcement? --mark nutley (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be reading a different parole to the one I'm reading. I see no similarity between "malicious" and "septic" (and the wording is warned, not banned). Adding an "unsigned" to (someone's; I didn't know it was yours)? Seems really rather petty, but on an article talk page you could probably argue it was a technical violation. But editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation is the wording - and I don't think that page *is* subject William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And calls an editor an "old fruit" again. *sigh*--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that, just maybe, spamming the same trivia to every admin you happen to have ever met isn't rally a good idea? My answer is over here [13] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)