Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:28, 3 December 2008

To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X.

This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering.

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

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

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

The Holding Pen

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

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

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

Given the sanctions, which are more humiliating that restrictive, the case was clearly non-urgent.
There is a good deal of interpretation and selective quoting in the evidence. I don't see any eveidence that OM was given any opportunity to respond, and that is bad (looking at OM's page, I think this response [1] from ~~arbcomm~~ [FT2] is revealing: when asked directly if OM was given the chance to respond, the reply is weaselly).
I'm missing the result of the user RFC that obviously the arbcomm insisted on being gone through first. Could someone point me to it?
Could all these people please get back to the job of deciding the cases validly put before them, most obviously the G33 and SV/etc ones

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

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

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

In case you have not yet noticed: This seems to be deeper. [2]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So whats going on?

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

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

As we know, KL has repudiated FT2's postings [3]. But [4] rather suggests that secret proceedings were indeed going on.
tB has "temporarily" blanked the page [5], which is nice, though not as good as "permanently"
Jimbo has weighed in, saying basically "I haven't got a clue whats going on" [6]. Later updated to the Arbitration Committee itself has done absolutely nothing here [7], which does rather suggest FT2 acting alone in acting, though doesn't address discussions.
CM is cryptic [8] turns on the interpretation of "formal" in "formal proceeding", a semantic point that is not vacuous
JPG says its miscommunication [9] and begs for patience [10] but confirms the secret case [11]
FN thanks us for our patience [12] as does Mv [13]
Jv appears to endorse FT2's version, adding the OM case to those recently closed [14] and posting the result to ANI [15]. How does Jv know this is the will of arbcomm? And interesting question, which I've just asked him, and which he is studiously ignoring.

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

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

CM [16]. The statement is bizarre and is going to leave a lot of people (including me) unhappy. It looks like "it was a regrettable miscommunication, please don't ask any more questions" is going to be the line.

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

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

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

Ah, it looks like the official line is it all ended happily ever after [17], nothing to see, move along here William M. Connolley (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And FT2 is terribly busy [18]

Hmm, so... it all ended happily ever after and everyone forgot about it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten. Who knows if it will happen again or is happening now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 is back secret activities. I can't believe it.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed by clicking the above link. Both Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & yourself are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction in the case now ceases to be in effect.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm at its worst: a feeble wimp-out and a waste of everyones time. But thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm here: 2008-10-02 Block log); 23:08:48 . . Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (c'mon, for Giano this was very mild, and we can't bully people with blocks into writing more kindly). Apparently [19] is not incivil; and we have an explicit double-standard for G William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current

Schools Wikipedia

Anything serious missing from environment and climate and the weather? --BozMo talk 10:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Env: Deforestation. Is it odd to have Org F, Coll F, but not Farming itself? Having Oceanic climate is a bit weird, because you don't have all the other possible climate types. Earth Day? Environmental law? Ecology? There's a lot a lot in Category:Environment William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Farming is a divert to agriculture which is in the DVD but not listed seperately as farming. I need to update the redirect tables. SchoolsWP:Ecology is there but in another index, I will double list it. Environmental law I am adding. --BozMo talk 09:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a message where I'm sure you won't see this... does this need more work? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased abuse

you seem to be confusing your self with POV pushing how dare you claim im a vandal when your vandalistic edits on himalaya point the vandalistic tendancy towards you stop adding the POV term POK "pakistan occupied kashmir" you might aswell protect that himalaya page for a century because if i see your POV pushing term POK introduced again i promise i shall revert your garbage 81.158.128.76 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a teensy bit confused. I haven't claimed you're a vandal, quite the reverse. Assuming that is that you're the same as User:86.158.236.65, User:86.158.234.2 et al.; I said I see no evidence that this IP is a vandal. OTOH I will revert your edits and block you if you continue to edit war without discussion; get yourself an account (or re-start using User:Nangparbat and start trying to resolve this long-standing issue by discussion on talk page. What you're doing may serve to vent your anger temporarily, but it won't actually work William M. Connolley (talk)

Hey bub just to let you know if you keep adding your trashy terms such as POK to himalaya i shall revert till the day i die even if i do die someone will open there eyes to your sly way of POV pushing against pakistan typical western hatred against anything muslim untill your biased racism ends good night 86.151.122.134 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps who the hell is nangparbat and stop using it as a excuse to block me your starting to act a wee bit desperate now 86.156.211.67 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in your one-man quest for world domination. If you're interested in discussing the issues, do stop by and talk politely. Until then. Oh, and "there" should be "their"; "until" has one "l"; and if you'll read the bit I referred you to above you'll see I was trying to defend you. You're doing your best to be unlovable, but its not too late William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

world domination lol thats rich coming from some westerners ha ha if your short sighted maybe you could read my edits summarys and see my edits dont violate anything its just your love affair with the grey editor which seems to be clouding your already tainted judgement p.s i dont really need to be polite to a admin who doesnt even understand the slightest about biased editing but then has the nerve to call himself a admin 86.156.211.67 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that "your" is spelt "you're" in this context, and sentences start with capital letters. "I" should be capitalised too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blah blah anyways stop trying to change the subject the point is that POK term of yours will eventually be removed as other non biased editors will soon discover it on the himalaya page and your sounding like a sour old lady now 23:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But I *am* a sour old lady - didn't you know? Meanwhile - POK - you must mean "Pakistan ?occupied? Kashmir" I suppose? I really don't know, I've just been reverting you, not reading it. Please realise that I don't care about the text one way or another. Once you've realised that, we could actually try to talk about resolving the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so you havent been reading the article just blindly reverting be carefull son look what blind rage got america into a whole heap of trouble maybe sit down and read rather then set up more wars around wikipedia i suggest you retire 86.153.128.163 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation still poor but spelling improving: only "carefull" this time; an easy mistake to make. I'll ignore the "son", old fruit, since you're clearly on the young side yourself. I decline your retiring suggestion William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking

Re RFAR

Would you like to sport my candidature userbox, to be seen on my userpage? This will be minimally canvassed by me, but the box shows Shusaku so you might be the one person to want to hear about it. Oh yes, and see Giano question to me as ArbCom candidate. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Giano is as foul-mouthed as ever, and as ever no-one does anything about it and his many friends excuse him. I will certainly vote for candidates who are prepared to tackle this issue, but last time round that wasn't you (or was it? I must look up the history again); last I looked at RFar that excluded the majority of the current committee. I await events with interest William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I was on leave early in the year, you may need to look up the Durova case, end 2007.[20] Charles Matthews (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that diff, I missed it in the noise earlier. I see that Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by policies such as no personal attacks, no legal threats, and the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums., which [21] clearly violates, and various other statements over there too. I note that you've recused yourself in this case; can you explain why (please to remember that one of the issues in this case is things that are "obvious" to everyone that not everyone knows). Daniel too William M. Connolley (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal because the alternate "drag act" account was used to edit my candidature questions page. Basically I was on the receiving end of the foolishness. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Wouldn't recuse under those circumstances. That way, all you have to do to make yourself invulnerable to arbcomm is to insult them all. I still think you should say why on the arbcomm page, though William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated as you suggest.[22] (Shhh, I think such a strategy might be overoptimistic as to outcome; but tell no one.) 22:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What's far more worrying than the Giano issue is Charles' filing of an RFC simply because another editor dares to treat him as if he were nothing more than a lowly admin. Guettarda (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. I believe in dispute resolution. Exhaustive and exhausting efforts on my User talk had failed to get any sense out of Slrubenstein. So prior efforts were made. You actually don't know my motivations: like many others round this case, you are jumping to conclusions. My problem was with Slrubenstein's multiple blind spots in relation to unblocking and other policy. What is more, Slrubenstein has rarely unblocked: but when Slrubenstein unblocks, it has tended to be in high-profile situations, without going through the formalities, and with an idiosyncratic view of policy and the requirements of the situation. Therefore it was "third time unlucky": in previous situations there was no more than met the eye. But this time there was much more, and Slrubenstein should have asked, instead of rushing in ahead of another admin who followed protocol. We went over that, and apart from an odd taunt and gross imputation, the matter was settled. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Durova, I have directly requested that she go over to my Candidate page and raise her points about me, rather than dropping them into discussions where they are at best tangential. Not only do I believe in dispute resolution, I believe people should address gripes and beefs in the correct quarter. She has twice tried to make me the subject of the dispute with Slrubenstein, which is a gross misreading of WP:WHEEL. (NB that Slrubenstein simply brushed away the Connolley-Geogre case as some sort of tyrannical ArbCom plot against his rights. WMC might just have an opinion about that.) It is clear that people saying bad things about others is quite effective. But I am agin it. Durova, in my view, should put her issues with me before the community. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So over to William: which is more worrying? Charles Matthews (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Too much fighting. Well, I've just reviewed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#David_Gerard. MB gets my vote, and DG if he'll stand. But I'm struggling to see any evidence there of anyone acting to their credit. So, for the moment, I'll leave it there William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby

When blocking Scibaby, you really do need to file an RFCU and have a checkuser come in and (1) drain the swamp of any other socks, and (2) and long-term block any IPs he's used. Otherwise, more socks pop up and it becomes harder to retroactively undo all of their edits (because there are more interevening edits). Raul654 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Normally I don't bother. Will try to remember in future. Are you standing for Arbcom this time? Please do William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm going to stand for arbcom - I really, really want to wrap up my phd in the next 18 months and that really does cut into my Wikipedia time. If I were to run, I'd end up being idle most of the time. Raul654 (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a shame. I think they need some help, and some solid competent people with bottom William M. Connolley (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"some solid competent people with bottom"????--BozMo talk 14:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Jack Aubrey sense William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking

Not guilty, m'lud. Please refer to my reply to you here Ohconfucius (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion William, I left an updated note at WP:AN/3RR, but to recap: Ohconfucius was blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR and then proceeded to use Date delinker to evade that block. (Though actually, looking at Date delinkers contribs, I do note he has unlinked dates while blocked as well). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What confusion? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I thought it was bad for editors who are blocked to use alt accounts to circumvent those blocks. I note that despite Date delinker being blocked he's still editing using Ohconfucius. Or are 3RR blocks okay to circumvent? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe. Oc had better keep pretty quiet for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he's back at it again with the date link issue. I've placed a report at WP:EW. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM. To be blunt, you've lost. Be sure to lose gracefully. Further fighting on this issue is doomed. Further AN3 reports on this issue will be rejected, and if repeated you'll be declared vexatious William M. Connolley (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fibromyalgia, again

User:Orangemarlin has again reverted all other people's edits at Fibromyalgia, thereby a.o. reintroducing an erroneous pmid number for the umptieth time, reintroducing copyvio, and reintroducing a fact-tag, replacing the provided source.[23] Please advise, this is your plate now. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a mixture of trivia and controversial changes [24]. I suggest you re-introduce the trivia and discuss the more controversial changes on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I won't reinsert anything right away though. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin doesn't show up to discuss. Meanwhile, User:RetroS1mone keeps reverting my edits as well, see [25]. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit war, it seems likely that you will be blocked again William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, did you actually take a look? I'm not the one who is editwarring, I'm the one whose edits are destroyed. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its what everyone always says in edit wars "Its not me edit warring, its the other side". My advice to you remains the same: avoid reverting, take things slowly, put in any non-controversial stuff first and get agreement on that, then move slowly on the controversial edits and discuss fully. Boring, I know William M. Connolley (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is that we are trying to engage in discussion, but the reverting users won't participate all that much, and Orangemarlin keeps throwing out the non-controversial stuff as well. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Orangemarlin's only contribution to the discussion, and I believe it's a violation of his Arbcom restrictions. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, he is not supposed to try and get other users blocked anymore. But that's from what I heard, so I could be mistaken. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that, it looks like someone was not telling the truth to me. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, RetroS1mone again reverted about all my edits of the day in each and every article that I edited, thereby reintroducing all kinds of easily checkable errors, and again refuses to enter discussion. Please advise, we can't go on like this. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - what to do with this.....

I've fallen across something strange, a kind of vandalism, but not of the usual kind... It seems to involve creating a fake persona Michael Kerjman [26], notice how all the links that are referred are nonsense texts, they seem right on the first glance, but upon reading it, they reveal themselves to be Eliza style non-sense.

Apparently the article has been deleted before [27], but the ip 203.214.68.59 seems to have been at it for quite some time. There are still remains of this hoax [28] (again if one follows the links, its patent non-sense). Try googling Kerjman, and you will find that almost everything related to this name is of the same kind (and there is a lot (albeit not on WP anymore)).

Where do i raise such an issue? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm sure I've seen the end-target before (http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1043058). I thought it was the usual confused skeptic ramblings, but now I think you're right: it looks more like Eliza stuff. What to do? Nothing, if not serious, or ANI, if suspected of likely to recur or if there may be others out there I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

To confirm that I've sent you an email. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, saw it. Feel free to copy it in here if you like - I saw nothing there that needed to be private William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry William - I didn't check my email since I sent it. I'll post or send a reply soon. In the meanwhile, please also note that since the frivolous Wikiquette alerts were made by Srkris, I moved it up to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Srkris. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested an alternative of a 3-6 month ban for reasons I've stated there, and one administrator has supported this measure. Your input/vote would be appreciated on this alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked one editor in a dispute who had a clean block log and whom had NO caution to fix his civility. I'm not saying the block was illegitimate on its own, but that it was inequitable in the light of three facts; (a) by stark contrast, you didn't block a POV pusher for incivility but instead issued another warning, despite the final warning he received recently here (somehow overlooked because it was archived so early?); (b) the user you blocked is not the only one who has wikistalked/harassed by the user you cautioned; (c) even if it's considered borderline, given that this has occurred a number of times should be enough to take action - editors need not be forced to waste time through dispute resolution or burn out from the other effects of manipulative tendentious problem editing. Repeated incivility through the long-term is just as bad as a couple of egregious violations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this has taken a while to get back to. I blocked an editor for obvious incivility; having a clean block log is no reason for not blocking. Su knows WP:CIVIL well enough. It appears to me that you were involved in editing "against" Kris (e.g. Carnatic) and should have told me that rather than me having to trawl through diffs. At the time, I could see no individual clear evidence of incivility by Kris; but I agree (per ANI) that the cumulative total of his edits merits an extended block. I don't greatly care how long it is; I doubt it matters much; once you have a 1 month block for incivility your trigger level is lowered William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and yeah, should've mentioned it. I personally think the ANI discussion favoured a 3-6 month block, but given that you've allowed for an extension of the block if another feels there is consensus for it, it won't be an issue. And although the action was slightly delayed on Sr, given that it's been taken now, I have no other concerns regarding how equitable the block on Su was. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and for helping move things along at the discussion - it's appreciated. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, another admin has extended the block to 3 months accordingly. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair enough, thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look William M. Connolley (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still a bit unfair that I was blocked for an outburst in which all I did was to ask Srkris to stop talking about my profession and equate it with what he considered 'incompetence', in a very strong, but not so inappropriate way. He was waiting for me to post something since he knew that attacks against one's profession would warrant something. Even if I had simply asked him to 'stop doing it', he would have reported it here by quoting me off context.

Quoting what I wrote, "stop acting like you are drunk and berserk", all I was suggesting was for him to stop goading me with personal uncivility. He was basically disparaging me, my profession and my competence in a talk page edit-war and I seriously do not appreciate it. The worst part is that I had not even mentioned about my profession in that talk page but only in another talk page, as a casual mention to another editor. Now, he reads it from there ans talks about my profession five times in this thread. Now seriously, please put yourself in my position. I have had no instances of any civility, no blocks for more than two years, hassle-free editing and a moderately decent edit record. And now, because of a frivolous charge against me, I have a 12h block in my block log. All I did ask him was to outrightly stop going on a rampage against me and my profession. I do not appreciate even this 12h block. I have maintained my cool, engaged in constructive discussions, engaged in consensus seeking processes for more than two years only to follow the guidelines and policies. Now having this block feels like a blot in my record. I am really concerned.

These were his posts that preceded mine:

This is for the Sociolinguistics professor - look who first..

Sudharsansn the sociolinguistics professor

The professional linguist said something in your talkpage

Sudharsansn, the sociolinguistics professor, hasnt made a single meaningful contribution to any of the sanskrit-related language articles

got labeled by you as his opponent. Now enjoy his company

He has goaded me into asking him stop the nonsense and quoted me off the context to simply go on a rampage and get everyone against his POV banned.

Now I know that Srkris is blocked for three months and that is not the point. I am asking for my ban to be reconsidered in spite of the fact that it has passed. I sincerely appreciate some form of construction which would motivate me to continue being the constructive editor I have been all this time. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you also please look into this? Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 10:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist as Dirty Harry

Gosh. Thanks for letting us know where you stand on this one. Was a surprise though. --John (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he was DH. But its a useful analogy William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and have posted a longer response at User talk:Fyslee#SA as Dirty Harry explaining my thinking if you are interested. --John (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to disagree with you, and now I find I disagree with F too. Its a long time since I saw DH (I do recall the famous scene where they look into a window and see a nude, and the rookie says "now I know why they call you Dirty Harry"; I don't think anyone is accusing SA of that) but as I recall it DH *is* ethical but unorthodox William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users changing my talk on Talk:Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome

Hi, I am trying to resolve some current disputes on Talk:Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome, but WLU and now also Orangemarlin keep changing and removing my contributions to the talk page. Please advise. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you that if you don't stop misrepresenting WLU on the talk page I'll block you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? The presentation is fully accurate, see the discussion below the table. He only wants to obstruct due process. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As WLU has explained quite clearly, your representatin of his opinions is not accurate. And stop forum shopping William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido's block

Hi, William. I'm not doubting your judgement, but it might be helpful to pop in with a few diffs supporting Guido's block. He's asking for an {unblock} based on a lack of examples of edit warring. (Of course, his own comment – "...repeatedly removing a reply..." – certainly implies that he was edit warring and knows it.) See you at User talk:Guido den Broeder#Blocked. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, discussion on Guido's talk page continues (if a bit slowly). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William, I have declined Guido's unblock request mostly based on his very lengthy history of abusiveness and edit warring. I think that considering the circumstances, only 24 hours is somewhat of a gift. Trusilver 01:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'm a bit busy right now but will try to see whats up William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also of note - User_talk:RetroS1mone#GDB.27s_talk_page. Guido's talk page attracts a lot of fruitless attention. I'm thinking that at this point, we should all realize we're beating a dead horse and feeding it to a troll (I'd have to re-visit DNFTT to see if it truly applies, my point is all the unnecessary drama is futile and possibly serves to exacerbate things both for the project and the user). I wonder if an Editnotice would be worth installing on the page to that end - "While blocked, please edit the page only if responding to an unblock request". I don't know anything about Editnotices though, and it's probably not standard. Better than page protection though. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia

Sorry, but I didn't realize you had already answered me. The discussion was about the order of the co-official languages. Thank you.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone clue me in

Call be asleep, but I just went to vote in arbcom elections and discover its an open process with support and oppose. When did that change? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same system was used in 2006 and in 2007. Wake up, man ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I *am* asleep. I see I voted William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 265: / Line 265: @@
 Now I know that Srkris is blocked for three months and that is not the point. I am asking for my ban to be reconsidered in spite of the fact that it has passed. I sincerely appreciate some form of construction which would motivate me to continue being the constructive editor I have been all this time. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
+:Could you also please look into [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=255607723&oldid=255605010| this]? Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 10:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 == ScienceApologist as ''Dirty Harry'' ==