User talk:LessHeard vanU

Amend recent WMC refactoring ban to explicitly exclude own usertalk?

A user pointed out at my talk that after Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#William M. Connolley: on refactoring comments and civility (note that I changed the title of that section - it is the merged discussion that recently closed with a refactoring ban and a warning), User:William M. Connolley has removed whole comments from his own usertalk. Personally, I did not consider this when discussing the close, which omission I view as an oversight. Removing comments from one's own usertalk is generally given wide latitude, and given the purpose of that page I do not think that it violates the intention of the prohibition. Prodego already expressed here that they are okay with such removals. Would you mind if the refactoring ban is amended to specify that such removals are not included in the prohibition? I have also asked User:Lar as the other admin commenting on that thread. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all - removing comment from one's own talkpage is regarded as evidence of the contents being noted, and in practice is allowed for all instances other than certain templates. WMC should not be held to a more onerous standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting a skeleton

Hi there LHVU. I'm just asking you if you redirect [[1]] to [[2]]. I'd just like to put this skeleton of my IP's talkpage up in the closet, and if anyone comments during my RFA that will take place by the end of this decade, I could get it down it show it. I feel really embarrassed that I got myself into so much trouble and would like to put it and my IP edits behind me. Oh, and please respond on my talk page.

Sorry for any inconvenience

Yours Truly,

Buggie111 (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack

Since you were the last person to comment at AN about this user I thought I'd let you know I've requested a SPI investigation as I've found another likely BlackJack sock still active as of today [3], not to mention a couple of IPs, all editing in violation of the original block. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the appropriate venue to report edit warring then?

Regarding WMC, you said that the matter of edit warring does not fall under Requests for enforcement on climate change. May I ask what the appropriate venue is to report WMC's edit warring (assuming there is one)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion you opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#WMC has resumed his edit war at the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident would be the right place. I see that no "uninvolved" admin has commented there, and the focus might more usefully be the slow edit war and the question of what - if anything - has consensus. I think I shall comment there, and hopefully other admins will review the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

At the page you referenced above, you wrote "It would be useful if both parties, those for and those against inclusion of the material, would lay out their understanding of the dispute, and how they feel consensus supports their viewpoint." What would be the appropriate venue for that discussion? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Under my request; possibly using a subheading. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Notification of article probation

ChrisO is the one personally attacking me, not the other way around. The moment he used ad hominem on me was the moment that I was fully in the right to blow him off. If that doesn't sit well with you, take it up with an administrator. Macai (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am the administrator. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. Then if you have a problem with my blowing ChrisO off after he makes ad hominem attacks, do something about it; like block me. Macai (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to convince you that I was not, with deliberation, provoking ChrisO, since your mind has already been made up. What do you want me to say, exactly? Macai (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Can I give you some wikiloving too? You sexy beast.86.145.201.38 (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Er..... Is that you, Chuckles? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to call me 'Chuckles' that's fine by me. 86.145.201.38 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this. It's exceedingly annoying when you try to stick by the rules, have to deal with socking unresponsive edit warriors and you receive no help from ANI. Cheers and have a good one, --Atlan (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Query

Whatever you're drinking (or otherwise ingesting) can I have some?[4] seriously, injecting a bit of humor into this brawl is something much to be commended, even though one of your fellow admins has taken people to task for it Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Macai

You may wish to know that I have made a request for article probation enforcement against Macai. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Macai. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your request for review

Re this suggestion, "I am going to formulate an addendum, which I think you should also review...", I think it's better that I stay away. I was just concerned at what appeared to be a misreading of the record, and I would really rather not have dived back into that particular muddy pond. I admire your strong stomach. I am staying away and although I'm vaguely aware that we probably do not tend to see eye to eye on Wikipedia matters I do trust your integrity. --TS 01:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I will say here - in case you don't wish to swim again in that brown water - that your comments has altered my opinion on the standing consensus slightly; not changed, but made it less "secure". Maybe a look at the diff will suffice? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't have asked more than that you should review your (clearly marked) initial conclusions in the light of my comments. Thank you.

"Sand in claw". I hadn't heard that one before and assume it had something to do with your mistaking me for an administrator. I was an administrator for about 18 months, during which time I had immense fun and got blocked about a dozen times. I eventually worked out that I could get a lot more done if I didn't have those shiny buttons to distract me. --TS 02:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sand in claw"/"Rubbing salt into old wounds"... I remember you when you were an "ex-Arb", back when my habit of disseminating my opinion was not buttressed by the possession of flags. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was never an arbitrator. I suspect I may have a fearsome reputation in some quarters that may lend me former qualifications, in some minds, that I never held in actuality. --TS 02:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, when I get things wrong I really go to town - I meant to say "Ex Arb clerk", but now I am wondering if that is also a figment of what I am pleased to term my imagination. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So now we have at least two mostly (Tony ;-) and always (SBHB) sane editors who are happier without the tools - can we do something to retain such people? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Within Climate Change related articles? Why not? Once (upon a time, perhaps) we can demonstrate an venue where only WP policy is the basis by which material is included or excluded and anyone seeking to disrupt the collegiate editing atmosphere will be warned, restricted and ultimately excluded from it. For this to happen we need all the sane (which is a completely different beast to same) voices being heard. It also needs admins who are prepared to examine even those seemingly insane representations, so that the sane arguments can be tested and reinforced (and amended where necessary). That latter I can do, but I certainly need to work to the basis that I need to refer my findings to the sane consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think it was a mistake to solicit feedback from a member of the two warring factions on this matter. You should have looked to an uninvolved or at least neutral editor on this matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake was to forget that Tony had resigned the tools. I invited his comments because he was the person who had invited me to participate in probation enforcement, which he was involved in, and I was unaware that he had withdrawn. You will note that TS was one of 4 I invited to review my comments, all of whom are participating as "uninvolved" reviewers in these matters. It is my belief that when reviewers with a perception of supporting different pov's in a debate can agree that a proposal is neutral, then a referral to an outside/third party allows that party to concentrate on the proposal and not the underlying disputes it intends to resolve. Plus, if "your" admins and "their" admins concur I think it likely that fractions are encouraged to look to what they can accept, rather than what they will not. Consensus may even break out... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you've solicited feedback from more than two editors, I withdraw that part of my comment. I only saw feedback sought from 2 people. Which editor of the other opposing camp did you solicit feedback from? Regardless, it's not fair to compare the two sides in this fashion. Those aligned with the likes of WMC tend to be long-time, established users with a good grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Those in the other warring faction tend to be newbies who don't understand Wikipedia's rules on WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and tend to make bone-headed arguments. Tag-teaming and baiting aside, I've seen the former group win arguments - not because they were right - but simply because the other side didn't know how to make them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The others are BozMo, 2/0 and Lar. The adage about some being more familiar with policy than others is about right - which is fair enough, provided they recognise when applying policy they can also be less happy with the result. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, BozMo, 2/0 and Lar aren't involved (or are only minimally so) in the dispute on this particular article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The three above, and myself, have been involved recently in the overviewing the probation - I thought they were sufficiently aware of the general situation to be able to give a neutral opinion that addressed the general issues of editing in this area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi LHVU I have never followed or even read the Climate Hacking article so it would take some time to go through all the edits (as it took you). I don't see this as likely before Monday. I think on first sight I would find it difficult not to be affected by the content of the paragraph which looks completely absurd to include. But perhaps the whole article is like that. --BozMo talk 07:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's cool - my attention has been drawn to related matters which I will be further reviewing; the discussion isn't going to be concluded any time soon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have had an hour or so this evening and gone through all of this. What a mess. I am not hot in intervention and I am giving my comments to you since you asked. I don't feel sure enough to give them to AN/I. I cannot see a clear violation but I am not in a position to promise that none exists. In general (1) it is sufficiently muddy to mean that if there were violations it also may not have been clear to the violator(s) that they were violating, e.g. AFAICT prior to the first revert on this section on 27th by WMC he did some 150 edits to other articles since he was last on that page or its talk article so the exact status of that paragraph may not have been top of mind (3) 1RR was kept to (4) I guess we have not explicitly said that WP:BOLD is suspended on probation pages (perhaps we should) (5) I am not sure I like the "consensus is established because no one deleted it" argument because we are encouraging everyone to go to talk first and there were complaints on talk. (6) My own view would also support some sort of WP:BOLD defence just because a part of the comment made (about data loss especially) looks to me to be very questionable (how could it possibly be true?). Hope this helps/ --BozMo talk 21:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I suppose I do get a little wikilawyer over interpretation of policy. Can I take it to a more general As various editors worked toward an agreed form of words, a consensus was created to include the content in one form or another? My feeling is that too much of the problem at resolving issues is that neither side is interested in consensus when they feel "their" concerns are not fully met. I don't know how, but that mindset needs to change if this probation is ever going to be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you said "implicit consensus" or "tacit consensus" then I guess it might work logically, but in practice I prune/renovate fruit trees and often find I am tinkering with twigs before taking a step back and saying "hey, this whole branch need to go". "Should this section be here" is further up the brain stem than wordsmithing grammar. --BozMo talk 07:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Disclosures"

I've not revisited this for some time, but when I last edited Climatic Research Unit hacking incident the University was referring to the items as having been "stolen" and "illegally obtained", and the servers as having been hacked. The police, slightly more circumspect, called the affair "criminal offences in relation to a data breach," and reported that a specialist Met. unit dealing with computer crime was aiding them. There had been all kinds of nonsense on blogs, but the reliable sources were clear on this. "Disclosures" just isn't the right word, unless the reliable sources have changed their tune. I'm commenting here because I don't want to dive back into that cesspool. --TS 15:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• But the reliable sources also call it the "Climategate scandal", "Climategate controversy", or simply Climategate. Are we going to adhere strictly to them on one, relatively minor aspect, but not on the fact that the current name of the article is currently not in compliance with these sources? UnitAnode 15:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Could we stick to the subject? Turning every discussion into an argument for moving the article to "Climategate" isn't productive, and is one of the reasons why many good editors won't go near that article while the discussion is so repetitive and so toxic. --TS 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How the title of the article is treated is very much germane to the subject. Insisting on going with the reliable sources in the minute while ignoring them in the larger issue is just not on. (And this is the first real discussion about fixing the current hackneyed title that I've participated in.) UnitAnode 16:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that the reliable sources to which I refer are the University and the Norfolk Constabulary. You apparently believe the newspapers to be a reliable source. That may well be at least half the problem. --TS 16:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that when I talk about "reliable sources", I'm speaking about what this project calls reliable sources, not what you might consider reliable sources. UnitAnode 16:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the statements of reputable universities and police forces are considered by Wikipedia to be more reliable on their own activities than the speculations of journalists. --TS 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like you're engaging in a bit of primary sourcing to me. And, no, you don't get to declare reliable sources unreliable, simply because what they print isn't convenient. UnitAnode 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Primary sourcing? Not a bit of it. The statements of the police and the University have been reported in multiple secondary sources. They are statements of fact about the way this matter is being investigated. All the rest--at this stage--is speculation. --TS 18:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• My point is that it is largely irrelevant to the wider discussion on how the contents of the emails were disclosed, it was what has been disclosed that has ignited the RL interest in the subject. It is on that basis that I suggested a change that moved away from the word "hacked". However, I do agree that it is becoming tedious to have any discussion connected with the article become a venue for advocating a different pov. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  We could go with "Hacked Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" or go with the police version: "Climatic Research Unit data breach and documents controversy". The point of those proposed names is to place the documents controversy in the title. I think the latter title should be quite popular.

• But that won't make the problem go away. Discussions on reasonable, achievable name changes will tend to be dogged by the insistence that the name be changed to one that can probably never command consensus on Wikipedia. I think that requires careful discussion between administrators to decide on what minimal action can be taken to help things to move on. --TS 16:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, it's not about POV, it's about what the reliable sources call the incident versus what Wikipedia currently insists on calling it. UnitAnode 16:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Content restriction thing

Hello! Just wanted to bring this to your attention: User_talk:Nigelj#Content_restriction_violation.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, the content restriction has since been attenuated so this no longer applies.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Get rid

Hello LHVU, it's been a while. Would you mind being popping over to this user [5] and vapourising him. I left a message asking him to stop adding rubbish, but he has persisted - so he has to go. To Wikipedia it's the dangerous sort of rubbish, that those who don't understand these things could easily beleive and is not so easily picked up - It's only a few people like Wetman (or me) who spot these things and if we don't log in for hours or days they remain. Thanks.  Giano  08:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the account - but I would caution you, Giano, that not using Warning Template #4(b)(mod.3) has likely placed us both in great peril and I shall ensure that you will quickly join me in purgatory (second roundabout off the A317 Bisely bypass) should I have been found to have over reached my sysop privileges. Careful, now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you LHVU - avery nice result. I do not use templates, as I have a perfectly good vocabulary of my own. I think the editor in question received the message quite well without me plastering the Hand of Ulster or some other mysterious masonic-like symbol on the page.  Giano  14:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you believe this editor to be a sock of an account you recognised? There did appear to be a sock which you did not block [6] but otherwise could you offer a bit more explanation for the block? It is hard to see at face value that the edits were bad faith or vandalism, apart from introducing stuff which is factually rubbish of course. Do we know who this is? --BozMo talk 13:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The block was for vandalism only; from a review the named persons were redlinked, and while the subjects may have been misspelled the fact that two different individuals (one nobility, one royalty) are noted as being the current occupier of Lancaster House - each replacing the same Govt. body - lead me to a the conclusion that the account was only there to cause mischief. I am not the expert in either official residences or royalty/nobility that Giano is, but I was unfamilar with both "individuals" (I am British). Lastly, if Giano reckons it is someone adding disinformation that appears to be legit without specialist knowledge then I am confident he is correct. No, I don't know who they might be - Giano might. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I blocked the other account. --BozMo talk 14:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Quill

You might want to stop the bot archiving your block message. FWIW, I get the feeling that whoever has been editing with the account over the last couple of weeks isn't the person who was editing with it longer ago. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It should remain for another 4 weeks - and even if they log in after that period they will get the message when they attempt an edit, plus they should know enough to check out their talkpage history. If it is another person misusing that account, I wouldn't be concerned if they were unfamiliar with how to resolve it in truth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's archived already (looks like two days is all a message is allowed to remain on his talk page). By the way, have you considered archiving this page? It is getting rather enormous. DuncanHill (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

blackjack

re-Blackjack see Wiki-Cricketproject page for more sockpuppets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.131.235 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo

I'm not sure how the various editors can continue civil discourse on Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks with Giano's current behaviour. On every single topic, regardless of whether it is relevant to the discussion, he's bring up the point that Guy started discussing him behind his back. It's making things quite impossible, and it's totally disruptive.

As you have now archived the discussion on this, could you suggest a way forward? I am not happy about the situation at all, this is a relevant and necessary discussion, and I'm beginning to feel pretty annoyed that one editor can disrupt the whole thing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've worked out what to do. I've moved the relevant bits into the original thread and put Giano's irrelevant bits into their own thread. A worthy compromise that won't derail the discussion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been reading through the discussion at Incivility blocks, and am exasperated that there is continued reference to a particular individual by editors who should know full well of the likely consequences of invoking that name (and if they don't by now, have no business opining on procedural matters). I am expending what little influence I might have with Giano in having him disengage from those pages - but I have little hope of being successful if people insist on bringing up his name with regard to his current "incivility"... For fuck's sake, this the perfect example on how individual interpretation of "civility" can become a self fulfilling prophecy; An editor is discussed without their participation, they find out and react angrily, and everyone sadly nods their heads and say "Told you so."

I can end it. Sure. I just block everyone on the page for disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that I've not commented on him while he was not aware of the conversation other than to ask for clarification on what was being referred to, that seems a might unwise. Perhaps speak to Guy why he brought it up? I'm not happy about this, as the problem only started from that point and totally derailed the great work that a number of other editors were doing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That only works if Giano disengages - how have you ensured that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps if I took it to ANI for discussion on what to do that might be helpful. Oh, hold on a second, I did. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You would not have got any help from ANI, but you would have created a great deal with drama - especially if you responded with such cute comments. Now, nothing personal, but I have to drop a template on you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I? It looks like people were trying to sort this out. Are you saying that I brought up Giano behind his back? By all means, template away, btw. I'm not terribly concerned about that, given that you are perfectly fine with Giano being nasty and causing the whole conversation to go off the rails. I worked pretty hard at that policy, and none of this is my fault. If you are fine with me being accused of something I didn't do, all right then - go right ahead and block me. Seriously. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth should I block you? It isn't as if you will post again on Giano's talkpage again for the day, is it? I fully understand that I am perceived as Giano's cheerleader admin (well, the one that hasn't been blocked or banned yet - and that is a fact that might be dwelt upon...) but you seem unaware that the reason why you cannot expect help from ANI, and why invoking Giano brings with it so many obstructions. If you want a measured discussion on this you can email me, or we can have one of those interwebby realtime chats thingys - I am signed up on three at the last count, one will likely be sufficient. Not "tonight", though; I am soon to bed and you must be starting or ending your working day. Really. I am not putting up obstacles, and I am trying to help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I know you are. I'm just incredibly frustrated that other editors made comments about Giano like they did and now all the conversation is derailed. Only 10 minutes ago that talk page got a confused message from an editor who is trying to participate and who can't work out the threads. Is that fair to them? And I'm frustrated that Giano has the gall to accuse me of doing things I haven't - but I've got my diffs now that show how unreasonable he's being. If he continues trying that tack, then I'll be defending myself, as everyone else seems to be OK with him making unfounded accusations.

All I want on that policy page, literally, is to fix up an issue with the way we do blocking. Within 2 weeks of serious participation on ANI I've noticed that there are either two things that happen around this area - either the editor gets severely blocked, even when they only start exhibiting unacceptable behaviour, or they don't get blocked at all until things haven't gotten out of hand. That's what I'm trying to resolve here. Giano isn't helping - the policy proposal has nothing to do with defining incivility, it's what to do when it occurs and is disruptive. I'm not at all happy that he was talked about behind his back, but then again I'm not happy that he called another editor who made an innocent suggestion a "priggish hypocrite", nor do I like the fact that he assumes that I am naive or that in real life I have to put up with worse behaviour than what he exhibits. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. for the record, I was a bit annoyed at the block warning (which seemed pretty serious), but I've gone away to help out with some chores and after I reviewed Giano's page I see what you are trying to do. And for that I'm appreciative, and I apologise for taking my frustrations out here. You're a good guy LessHeard, and if you can help in this situation as Giano has respect for you, then that's great and I'll follow your lead. I only ask that we be allowed to discuss the content of the proposed policy without getting conversation so far off track that nobody can work out what's going on. I thought the archive move by GoodDay was a good one, and actually that's what was done on ANI also. It was removed by Giano, so now the conversation continues, which I'm going to disengage from now that it's been hived off into it's own thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I wish the thread restored as it was. It is not Ta-Bu's place to recreate pages at whim! and is presumptious and incivil to do so. I'm sure he does not care for the content, but that can't be helped. Am I permitted to remove every instance where he was party to long discussions regarding me at very long and considerable length? Without even the commonest courtesy of notification. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the civility police need to realsise this. I trust the thread will be accuratly restored by morning, so we may resume our work in peace. Without my name being used to scurrillously distort a debate on civility.  Giano  23:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You can wish all you like, but it isn't going to happen. Your comments are not on topic, they won't be restored in the way they were. They are extremely disruptive to the discussion at hand, so we are going to keep it separate. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but this needs saying. Guy is perfectly well aware of just how disruptive his insertion of Giano into the discussion would be, and given Guy's own history of extreme incivility, I do doubt his intentions in doing so. Feel free to accuse me of bearing a grudge against Guy (someone always does), but in my experience his rudeness is far less justifiable than Giano's outbursts. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Respect?

Have you seen this page? You're on it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I remember blaming Giano for the loss of my hair, per the "curse". He photoshopped my image with a superimposed "barnet". This time, I was scared. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Has consensus been reached for F's topic ban from Kundalini yoga?

Hello LessHeard. You and I both added your opinions in the thread at WP:ANI#Kundalini_yoga - User:Fatehji. Do you believe that consensus now exists for a topic ban of Fatehji? There appear to be four editors in favor, no-one opposed, and it is accepted that four specific articles are excluded from the ban. Fatehji was notified of the ban proposal, but chose not to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that Fatehji has since responded. I think it behold us to see if and what Gatoclass reply is - my view is that Fatehji is not responding to the complaint, but counter complaining (and also making assumptions upon Gatoclass' carefully neutral language, but that could simply be inexperience) and noting they are open to dispute resolution processes... although that seems to mean that they are willing to argue their point at different venues. I think we should hold for a little while longer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Re: Block evasion by User:Richard Daft.

I've noted your advice about SPI. Sorry I can't log in at present as I'm not at home and can't remember my password. JJJ. --86.160.125.25 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

?

Why do you want to know where I live? YourBrain (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, I for one appreciated this [7]. Ironically, I was just about to count up the number of times i've been reverted in the climate change articles among a few high revert editors with then intention to prepare an enforcement request. Your action has given me faith and caused pause on mine. The articles would be better with fewer reverts and greater source collaboration and attribution on content additions. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If both "tendencies" were permitted to add their preferred, verifiable, due weight (that is, per the expectation of the reader due weight) content, can you possibly imagine how good - how much of a first preference for new readers on the subject - the articles could be? All sides of the argument(s) laid out and available for research, all figures shown and discussed per sources, the history, the successes and failures of all concerned, cited and referenced? Wouldn't that be fucking brilliant? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would. I guess folks will have to stop supporting a "side" and focus on supporting wiki with sources. This might be the kind of pipe dream that could be destroyed by apocalyptic fear. Collaboration is really greater fun than reverting. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And easier, because all you need worry about is the quality of your own edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Er....

That ban proposal is a proposal to ban ME from editing the article. It rather seems like the Giano boosters have rounded up a posse to start a good lynching. At least from my perspective, of course :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• You will desist from referring to those who have asked you to leave Giano alone as both "Giano boosters" and "a posse to start a good lynching." You took this to ANI this morning for some damn reason, and now you aren't happy with the way it turned out. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking of hounding... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Cut the crap. I have watched LHvU's talkpage for a long time. You posted here with personal attacks against both me and the multiple other editors that have tried to get you to leave Giano alone. I have every right to call out such bullshit. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, no one rounded me up. I noticed this all on my own. It's been simmering all week and there are a bunch of inconclusive ANI-ish threads about all this. Shit happens when you've a huge watchlist. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean on my talk page? I should feel flattered, I suppose. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I am aware who is being sanctioned - I think you have sufficient "honor points" to be allowed to regulate yourself. My talkpage does have some 230 watchers, and since I am currently active on the Global Warming pages in an admin capacity I am not surprised that Unitanode - also active there - has my page on their watchlist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  He's proven at that talkpage that he's unable to disengage from either that article or Giano. He's been asked to do so by every editor that has commented on the situation since he brought it to ANI this morning. Yet, he won't agree to do so. Thus the ban proposal. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I have read the ban proposal, and the only reason why I have not commented upon it is because there is no need to pile on. My point here, though, is that Tbsdy is generally an effective admin and the specifics of the last few days should not detract from that. If there is a consensus that Tbsdy needs to stay away from Giano, and further not to edit a particular article, then I think that Tbsdy can be relied upon to stay within those limitations - without being supervised. I am also pushing that angle because it gives all parties a dignified method of resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Of course, if that is community consensus then that is what I will do. However, there is the tricky issue of what I do about Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks, which is essentially my brain child and that Giano frequents. But I'm sure that something could be worked out. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I suggest you might wish to understand why the practice of incivility blocks is somewhat deprecated, and in some parts of the community regarded with outright suspicion, before re-embarking upon that chapter. It might be salutary to learn why an editor might comment that such a redefining would need to get a certain account on board, and why that named individual responded as they did. There is not only a history, but there are several (some mutually antagonistic) readings of that history. Suffice to say, uncivil conduct is to be deplored - but it should not be used as an excuse to silence legitimate complaint (however expressed). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm going to come right out and say it - you are talking about Giano and JzG. I'm less than enthusiastic in engaging Giano, certainly not since he told me to stick an olive branch up my arse. :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  While I have disengaged from you TSBDY, I keep seeing various quotes attributed to me (the one above being a prime example) I think perhaps we ought to have some diffs because they were not my precise words - were they?  Giano  22:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Your precise words were "Oh and you know where you can put your olive branch don't you?". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  In this instance, yes. If some people had not made the mistake of attempting to silence Giano's embarrassing disclosures of other peoples poor behaviour by means of civility blocks then we might not have the situation where we find ourselves now. While none of this is your fault, I think it shows that it behoves us to understand that there may be backgrounds of which we are unfamiliar - and when it suddenly becomes apparent that there is more to the matter than at first considered, then a time for reflection rather than reaction is required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how things degenerated so suddenly, I was amazed! One moment we were having a calm debate, then JzG drops Giano into the conversation. All of a sudden, all debate stopped while Giano yelled at various people, and a number of Giano boosters (including Bishonen) dropped by to crap all over some poor soul who had the foolhardy idea of a status star system. Giano made comparisons to male jigolos and Bish called me "Prissy", and there you have it. The entire conversation was derailed. So don't colour me impressed by the whole debacle. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  "Giano booster" is, I feel, a pejorative term - a while back to defend Giano was something of a career suicide move, until a few Arbs and other admins also took up the cudgels (and, truly, there was the whiff of cyber violence in some of the proceedings) on his behalf - and is not helpful..... especially since you are interacting with one. The true lesson of the above instance is that you proceeded with all good faith into a bear trap (quite the anology, since "poking the bear" is precisely what happened) and was shocked by the violence of the snare snapping around you - the bait was responding in what has become the standard manner, as was the rest of the circus. Blame neither the bear, the circus, or even the trap setter - a harsh tutor of some uncomfortable truths, it might be argued - and especially not yourself. There is a history, as I have said. To wit, as regards Bishonen - she feels obliged to Giano, for how he placed his then untarnished honour in her service when good men said nothing. So, as ever, there is a background which you have no reason to know about - but might effect you. When you are able to acknowledge that there are reasons for even this recent unseemlyingness, then lessons can be taken from it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  Firstly, I wasn't aware that Giano booster would have a strong negative connotation, so though I'm not very flattering or think very highly of those editors, there was no real ill intent in that comment. Now all of this history is very interesting, but how is one meant to know all of this? You see that I'm relatively tough enough to cope with this sort of thing, but what of the editor who Giano shoved out of the article and hounded till he's basically left the article space altogther? Even when the editor withdrew he pursued them. Does this sound at all reasonable? What lessons would that editor need to learn to be able to try to edit Wikipedia? The "do not do anything that Giano doesn't like" isn't part of any policy I've read! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  It should not be expected that people will know about some of the underlying tensions around editing WP - after all, very many people edit article space without once getting caught up in one of the controversies; why should we discourage them from editing? What might be valuable if people were able to say "Whoa, what is this hornets nest I have disturbed?" and seek answers - like it would be more valuable if other experienced editors dropped over to inadvertent trespassers talkpages and tried to help explain the situation. The truth about Giano is, that the encyclopedia with flourish or decline whether he edits or not, and whether he is appeased or not (but some areas will be improved by his contributions, and others perhaps by his absence - but that is true of most of us). Giano is, I repeat, a totem - an example of how the incorrect use of policy for dubious means results in the deprecation of the intended purpose. Take up, again, your review of incivility blocks - but now with the knowledge that they need to be presented in such a way that stops them being used to muzzle other editors, and used to stifle discourse. What would be effective in its purpose, and not bring down the ire of Giano, may well be an excellent instrument in helping maintain a good editing environment. Giano may even thank you for it (but don't hold your breath!) Oh, and can you point me to that editor - I should see if I can offer a similar salve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  His talk page is this away. It doesn't help that Unitanode decided to accuse him of WP:POINT, self aggrandizement and got into a revert war with Jeni by removing his bounty. While you are there, could you attempt to explain why this bit of hounding is acceptable on Wikipedia? The editor had already withdrawn from the article, but hadn't withdrawn his bounty, and yet Giano continued. Makes it seem a bit hypocritical that I have been accused of the same thing by this editor, no? If you can explain why this sort of thing is allowed to the editor, then I wish you the best of luck! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Stretching good faith to its utter limits, I could perhaps believe that one might not know that calling other editors "Giano boosters" was a pejorative. My good-faith can not extend, however, to the use of the phrase "a posse to start a good lynching" to describe those with whom he was disagreeing. There's no way to use that phrase and not know you were being pejorative. LHvU, you have the patience of a saint with this guy. I, however, do not. Also, what I wrote was that it appeared that Labatt was putting out his "bounty" to make some kind of POINT. I said that, because of the message he left explaining it. It was basically something like, "$50 says you can't" or something like that. I'm sorry, but that is POINT-y, period. And no amount of deflecting how you behave here onto me is going to change the facts of what happened today, Tbsdy. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Also, about the bounty tag, I was the one who reached across the aisle and found a real compromise that everyone could live with. Tbsdy just bitched. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Given you only wish to think the worst of me, there's really not much I can say about this. However, Giano was the first one to remove the bounty, he said it made the page cluttered. I reverted, and so did another editor. Then you suddenly appeared out of absolutely nowhere and took out the bounty box. You later realised how bad this looked and readded it, in almost exactly the same position as before. When I took you to ANI, I was accused of not speaking to you on your talk page. Interestingly in the thread I stated in the first sentence that I had tried to talk to you, evidently the one who archived that thread couldn't read. It was only after I pointed out that you blanked my discussion with you that he realised he was looking a bit silly. That editor was Equazcion, who was the one who initially closed the thread. When he came to the talk page, you initially denied that it was a problem, and to start with he was fairly firm in asking you why the bounty should not stay. When you realised he was not going to let it go, you added it back with a collapsable template, but he pointed out that he was going to revert you to show the box anyway, so it was only at that point that you decided to put it back in a slightly different position. Don't try saying that you came up with a compromise for any other reason than you realised how bad it was looking. I'm afraid that the POINTy one was not that editor, but yourself. Why else did you get into a revert war over this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You need to stop this bullfrog now. I didn't "realize how bad it looked", I compromised with Equa. You are revealing yourself in spades here. You lie about me, deflect attention from your own bad actions, and drag sugar to ANI whenever you don't get your freewheeling way. I'm sick of it -- and many people who've dealt with you these last few days agree. And you will quit trying to ascertain my motives in reaching a compromise. You have no feathering idea who I am and what I'm about. You've been harassing and baiting Giano for days, and when I warned you about it, you turned your sights on me. Cut the bullfrog now. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• (ec - to Unitanode [first comment]) On my talkpage, everything said is taken at face value... unless I decide otherwise. I do, indeed, have the patience of a Saint - just happens to be one of those ones who get twitchy and makes incomprehensible comments about small lizards (there must be one, there is for most things) at inopportune moments. You might have a suspicion that what I am doing here is trying to diffuse the situation by allowing everyone to air their opinion and grievances, and you would be right. You are indeed permitted to do the same. The trick of course is to allow the frank disclosures while not aggravating other contributors. Any suggestion on how this might be best achieved are welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (second comment) My page, my revisions! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  You should have replaced my swearing with "ooh-la-la", a la Craig Ferguson. I have to say, though, that for a foul-mouthed chap such as yourself, you seem to have quite sensitive WikiEars! :) Funny stuff... Scottaka UnitAnode 23:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I could have. Didn't. My swearing is justified - others is just "naughty"... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What-the-fork? I can't say sheep on this page?

Seriously, it looks like a productive dialogue was had, above. Nakal, Jack Merridew 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there are fragments of profound wisdom above ... but not "productive" unless backed up by nuclear weapons. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank God for the good sense of NuclearWarfare. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

IP Cornish/English again

Please see Special:Contributions/82.1.157.16. There was another earlier this year with a very similar pattern of edits, including the mountain stuff. I'm probably too bad-tempered at the moment to do anything constructive with it. Could you take a look please? DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours, common vandalism/disruption. No time for nationalists of any hue in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Some dance to remember...

Could you undelete my Cornwall dabs, Cornwall People and Cornwall Resources pages please? DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I will try to remember to not include the last edit, which is a request for deletion... Hang on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you think you could archive your talk page a bit? It's getting slightly enormous! DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is so big that I keep finding excuses not to... Presently I am fortifying myself against the effects of the common cold with copious quantities of brandy.... Perhaps tomorrow, then..... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr Duncan's Patent Mixture for the Relief of Wintry Complaints.... To the juice of a very large rum, add honey, lemon juice, bronchial balsam and dispersible aspirin, and top up with hot water. Drink regularly. Won't cure you, but you won't really care either. DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Codeine! It's OTC here at the North Pole, at least. Won't cure you either, but you'll be a fun person again. Bishonen | talk 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

"...again"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, little heard users just get even smaller (again). [/Bishzilla trundles off, delicatedly humming "Ballade des dames du temps jadis." ] Those would be the Jurassic lady dinosaurs. Come, little 'shonen! bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Þjóðólfr

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aatomic1 may have a bearing on any review of your block of this editor. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hello. In a roundabout way, I saw the question you posed at the admins' board. It's not the usual place I'd post, so've come by here. Hope you don't mind the page incursion. For whatever it's worth, I think indef-blocking User:Okip wouldn't be fitting. From what I can tell, Okip's view seems to be the RfC was 'tainted' or shaped by particular editors, to the effect its conclusions, interim or final, are substantively affected. Following from that, again if I'm reading correctly, he's saying the concerns should be presented on there, on a basis they concern the foundations of the RfC. If I'm reading correctly a block be it social, by page ban, or technical, by account, is being sought based on disagreement with that view, along with the lack of diffs he's provides to support all his allegations. In response to a request unsupported claims be struck, he's since struck through earlier comments he's made. Given that act to address concerns, it seems enforcement action on him isn't warranted. No need to reply; if ya do tho, my preferred arena is here. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

...might be redundant now. I see things've have moved on since I started writing that. Hmm. –Whitehorse1 17:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much follow Okip's argument, but the question is whether these points should be raised within the RfC (which is directed at gathering comment regards BLP's and sourcing requirements) and not some other place. That is, it isn't what is being said but rather where it is being said. Since the concerns raised are not in relation to the object of the RfC, then they are disruptive. A parallel may be drawn with accusations of vote rigging during elections - which is permissible, but not to the extent of having voters harangued while they try to cast their ballots. As mentioned elsewhere, my view has moderated somewhat and I do not forsee me enforcing sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The location does seem to be the crux of the matter, agreed. The concerns raised, whether or not well-founded, do relate to the RfC itself. That is, they're about the RfC. Much like we talk about pages on their respective talkpages, across namespaces. Okip asserts - to use his words - the RfC has been marred by dirty tricks from its inception. In line with community norms of where pages are discussed, it's appreciable that he'd deem there the logical location to voice views. Naturally, raising claims about editors in relation to their alleged activities that might bear on the RfC is quite different from comments about editors' supposed activities where the connection of those to the RfC is tenuous, even absent. On reflection, I can't help wondering if the warning you placed might be somewhat overly broad in its scope. This doesn't excuse him or others from the need to reduce hyperbole, overquoting, premature conclusions, or unsupported claims of course. –Whitehorse1 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted then recreated article

Could you have a look at the history of Andrew Saunders, and let me know if the speedied version (by an editor of the same name) was about the same person the article is now about? And if so, is there any material in the deleted version that would benefit the current version? DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Non notable footballer from NZ with passing BLP violations in respect of an ex girlfriend. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You have unfairly blocked Nefer Tweety

LessHeard vanU, please see my comment on AN/I. There's a lot of background to this case. Thanks, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And where is the rule on striking out the input of an alleged sockpuppet? Is there such a thing as a prohibition on restoring that input? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed a sockpuppet it is not strange at all to strke their participation in the discussions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "strange"? is it a WP policy? Is there a policy against restoring that input that makes it punishable? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Per User talk:Arab Cowboy#Asmahan topic ban and WP:ILLEGIT, the edit by your indefinitely blocked sockpuppet was struck correctly, and by re-instating it Nefer Tweety violated policy. I note that you have continued to contest Checkuser determination that you have socked, so I base no credence upon your protestations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I never had a sock puppet, it was a CLEANSTART sttempt against the stalking of another user. You may wish to take it or leave it - I don't care. The link you posted does NOT support your unfair block of NT. I do not find your opinions and convoluted writing style any more credible anyway. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This so called "cleanstart" attempt, now lets take a look at it: Arab Cowboy first attempted to deny the connection: [8] It wasn't until after he admitted it. Arab Cowboy made posts with the Medjool account at the Asmahan talkpage without saying it was him, making it look like it was another user supporting the edits he had edit warred over with his Arab Cowboy account. See for example his reply to number 2 when he says with his Medjool account "P. 36 is not viewable online (at least I could not see it), so how could your claim be verified?", while at the workshop Arab Cowboy talked about what it "said" on page 36:[9] and he has talked about p36 before at the talkpage 1c:[10]... this alone shows that he was pretending to be someone else with the Medjool account. After he created the Medjool account he simultaneously continued to use the Arab Cowboy account editing articles and making posts at talkpages with both accounts. Arab Cowboy got restricted and topic banned on the 14th december: [11] He used the Medjool account to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction after 14th December. This involves more then 1 revert per page per week and changes with the respect to the ethnicity or nationality of people which he is not allowed to do.

Here are some of the diffs Arab Cowboy made with his Medjool account after 14th December when he was topic banned and restricted:

Changes with respect to the ethnicity or nationality:[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

More then 1 revert per page per week:[25][26][27] and [28][29][30] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone need any more evidence that SD is a stalker? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Confused....

...either you are or I am. I'm not under "warning that further edit warring would result in 1RR", or if I am, nobody has bothered to tell me. Have you confused me with KPD? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was confused (I still am, but not so much in respect of that particular matter now). Now corrected and link given to earlier "warning". I apologise to have misdirected at your expense. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility police?

Since you seem to be todays civility police: why no comment on "Perhaps we could just nominate Napoleon and Snowball to decide who amongst us is more equal than the others. Or maybe Stephan and William would suffice. Scottaka UnitAnode 10:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)"? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh good grief, William! That was clearly a commentary on yours and Stephan's view that some editors are more equal than others in these discussions. It's a view that's clearly Animal Farmish, and pointing that out isn't uncivil. Scottaka UnitAnode 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• But it is unhelpful, or could at least be explained better (like you have here) rather than just alluded to. Perhaps you could rewrite it somewhat to explain the reference, so it doesn't get mistaken for a little 2 minute hate? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There's an article on Two Minutes Hate. Interestingly, George Orwell did not invent the term. Jonathunder (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"...article"? I am a sysop; please do not confuse me! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by an IP account and his/her (possibly) 4 sockpuppets

First of all, thank you for your blocking of one of the Dick Manitoba article's vandalizing sockpuppets, and I will likely apologize for my name-calling--while still opposing his vandalism.

User talk:Ukexpat referred me to the WP:AIV, buy I can't seem to get it posted, so I'll put it in his/her page as well as a few others.

"I was referred to WP:AIV from the Help Desk in the event of continued vandalism.

The articles affected are:
Caribou (musician) and Richard Manitoba.

I believe there is one person using 4, possibly 5 accounts for vandalism.

The one with the oldest record is Special:Contributions/Urbanshocker.
It has a record of 29 edits, most of Manitoba (disambiguation), as well as Caribou (musician), and Richard Manitoba.
It’s been blocked for 1 week.

The account with the most recent activity is: Special:Contributions/User:66.65.94.122.
13 out of its 15 edits where of Caribou and Richard Manitoba.
A few days ago, it was blocked for 31 hours.

After it was given its last warning a few days before that, Special:Contributions/Richeye came into existence. It made 6 edits: 5 of Richard Manitoba, 1 of Caribou (musician).

After the blocking of User talk:66.65.94.122, and within minutes after User:Urbanshocker was blocked came Special:Contributions/User:69.115.14.50, and Special:Contributions/Bxbmber‎ less than 5 hours after that. Each have only one edit: Richard Manitoba, same vandalism.

All remove my edits to Richard Manitoba, which has been sourced and supported by others; or add a non-sourced superfluous line in Caribou (musician)about Richard Manitoba being his legal and stage name.

I admit I lost my temper over this, and vented here Wikipedia:Help desk#How do I deal with this edit fight.3F, Though I’m feeling a bit better.

I request the following:
(1) that all of these accounts be blocked
(2) at the very least, be marked as sockpuppets—I suppose of the account with the earliest history (though I’m unsure what WP policy is of this)
(3) and mostly the 2 articles (with my edit) be protected. One might also include Manitoba (disambiguation) which he vandalized in the past.

Thank you."
70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for this; hope you don't feel you've wasted your time. The IP also posted to ANI, which was where I picked up their report. EyeSerene^talk 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's cool - you sorted the vandals and I gave the ip some advice. Hopefully things resolve to the good. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope so - we'll see :) EyeSerene^talk 20:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's me, User talk:70.54.181.70 again--back on the library computer.
(Might as well reply here now. :)
Thanks again for your help.
Here's a song that shows a bit the way I feel.
Sook-Yin Lee's Beautiful 2:47
You might want to minimize the screen 0:18 to 0:40 into the video, but the song's good.
Cheers.
205.189.194.252 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Very nu-gaze. I favorited. ps. If you make an account, you can sign in with your username and password from any pc. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A brief 'hi'

Hullo LHvU, how's tricks? This is just a very brief note to let you know I'm back in the fold after an absence from WP. I hope to get stuck into more editing on Cornwall-related articles very soon. Best, Andy F (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. It seems that User:DuncanHill, of the group of editors I used to work with, is the only one still active in that area. He would likely appreciate another contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite

Hi, I was wondering if, since Hipocrite and Marknutley both apologized, you would object to me unblocking them? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarumio

Regarding this block, I'm assuming you didn't implement an IP block, since he edited last week using one of the IPs listed there (195.195.247.144)? - Dudesleeper talk 01:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The ip resolves to a school, so they are usually not blocked for long unless there is a great deal of vandalism. The only thing to do is to report any ip, together with a link to the main account, to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AGW enforcement request

Here. I'll leave a note on the other involved admin's talks also. Cla68 (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone should invent a feature whereby changes to pages you look at show up. We could call it a "watchlist" or something like that. Or an "anti-spam list" perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Who needs to be a fifty year old motorhead...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• It didn't even cross my mind to take this to WQA first. I thought that since WMC had already received a couple of civility warnings under the AGW probation that the enforcement board was the proper place to take it if he crossed the line again. If all PA's must be taken to the WQA board before being reported to the enforcement board, then it should say that somewhere in writing. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  It's not a requirement, or even a best practice. It seems to be little more than the latest way to deflect criticism from Connolley's bad actions. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking.....

....that User:PCHS-NJROTC should still be on his "no abuse actions" parole, per the AN thread I can't currently find? Yet if you read his talkpage, not only is he clearly working in that area himself, he's now also got admin User:PMDrive1061 proxy-editing for him in the area from which he was most specifically banned--the issue of "cheerleader vandals". Since you seem to have the greater sense of diplomacy here, would there be a chance you could stop by his talkpage and add a little clue to the situation?? Thanks....GJC 18:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a greater sense of 'plomacy...? I shudder to think, of what. Although your post does bring up some memories of past dealings, I think I shall need to review the 'Boards archives before committing my my skills to the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reference I could find was this - see the comments either side of the Resolution sub heading. Since then, of course, they have created another SPI regarding the same matter. I would mention that the most recent PCHS noticeboard action was rapidly closed down by Newyorkbrad, citing past events (see PCHS's edit history, asking about same events). Perhaps his memory might hold the details to the parole you mention? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Block error

I think the block you just gave Nigelj was inappropriate on the basis that 1RR was not actually violated. AQFK has spun the first edit to make it sound like a revert, but was actually a significant rewrite. Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the discussion going on at the enforcement page that addresses this concern. I urge you to reconsider, or perhaps ask another administrator to review the block. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you "note the argument that this was not a 'technical' revert", was it really necessary to give a block to someone with an exemplary editing record with no previous blocks of any kind? That's harsh. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a good decision in the context of the probation. although I think the target and the context were off, the result is correct and the credibility of the probation is affirmed. --TS 01:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well do you think this edit continues the "edit war", and so a block for Heyitspeter would be similarly appropriate? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to bring a complaint of Edit warring to the enforcement page, you are at liberty to do so. I would, however, note that this is Heyitspeter's only edit on that page in the last 24 hours, and thus does not fall under the 1RR restriction, even technically. If you bring up a general edit warring enforcement request, since I have been previously involved I would limit myself only to commenting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly violates the spirit of the rule by perpetuating an edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have filed the RfE for edit warring per your suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Loose cannons

I just finished writing a plea to another editor on forms of address [31] and the next thing I saw was this. I think we're of like mind. The temperature must be lowered, and the gradient that makes it so easy to raise temperature must be levelled. --TS 01:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is very simple, we use the terminology toward the other party that they prefer - and we may insist on being addressed on our own terms. It simply shows respect for the other, and indicates our willingness to accommodate the wishes of the other. It is a simple lubricant of interaction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I can disagree with somebody as much as I like, but if I tried to take their name away it would not help my cause, it could only hurt them unnecessarily, and make it harder to work with them. I've sometimes failed to live up to that, but it's a very good principle. --TS 02:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A small nit you may wish to address ...

[32]. You referred on the RfE page to this as a warning and logged it in the warnings section but the term "required" is inconsistent with being "warned". Just FYI in case you you didn't say what you meant to say.  :)

Also, do you know of any 1RR template that I should be using instead? --GoRight (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They have been warned of the requirement (shrug?). Um, as for the template - no, but one of those {{Notice|"unambigious wording here"}} templates should suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish to highlight the following statement

It should be noted that the conditions of this article's probation state "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. " Even according to LessHeard vanU and BozMo's assessment (which I don't agree with), Scjessey violated assumptions of bad faith and uncivil commentary. It seems to me that we have a disconnect between the article's probation and its enforcement. If the article's enforcement is correct, then Scjessey should be sanctioned. If these violations are acceptable, then I request that the article's probation be amended to state that disruptive edits, including including incivility and assumptions of bad faith are now allowed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing again? Anyone might think that you were on some sort of Quest for Vengance rather than knowledge. Were you interested in knowledge, it would be natural to expect you to make actual useful contributions to the science side of article space. But you don't William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I suggest that where you are unhappy about the conduct of other climate change editors, you either make a proper complaint requesting enforcement or say nothing. If you are comfortable that there is sufficient evidence of bad faith then you have to be prepared to substantiate it. If there is not sufficient evidence then do not suggest it. Suggesting it when you feel the evidence exists, without doing ti properly, is both lazy and unhelpful. --BozMo talk 10:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I shall bear it in mind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I crossed that boundary but I have honored your request and removed my comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I've responded to the accusation of bad faith by expanding my statement on the RfE page. I reiterate my suggestion that AQFK receive sanction for filing frivolous complaints, having observed this badgering of one of the presiding uninvolved administrators. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Reminding an admin of the probation wording, following their reference to it, is not badgering - and being a sysop means there is an open invitation for comment regarding application of the role. Simply, I consider these comments outside of the area covered by the probation. I will consider whether I shall note my opinion at the enforcement request page, after seeing if there are any developments on the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the same comment on the enforcement request page here on your talk page seems like badgering to me. Either way, it is a signal that AQFK's goal is to get me sanctioned, rather than to seek an improvement in the editing atmosphere. This RfE is little more than gaming. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I politely asked you to removed the comments twice. All you had to do was remove them and that would have been the end of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I will no longer be responding here. I prefer that this conversation continues (if it must) on the brighter sunlight of the RfE page. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I understand the reluctance to remove a good content contributor, but as this real-life example illustrates, when a "star" performer or contributor engages in repeated violations of the rules, it seems the person will not usually self-correct until someone takes a strong stand and forces them to knock it off. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • So you're arguing that Wikipedia should be managed like the U.S. Air Force? There might be some merit to that, but in practical terms I doubt it would fly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The US Air Force screwed up big time in that instance because the involved leaders (Wikipedia's formal authorities are its admins) declined to take effective action. As far as I know, no lives are at stake here. My point is that when someone has become used to acting however they want to, he/she won't stop until forced to do so by someone in authority. The person in question will rarely correct on their own if people keep telling them, "Stop! or we'll say Stop! again." Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
      • psst... it was a joke, son, a joke.... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. However, we need to be even handed. Selective enforcement is a bad thing. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Climate Change sanctions should never have happenened. They were not advertised widely enough (so certainly I disagree there was ever an opportunity for community consensus) and they are seriously unconstructive in this area of the wiki. Polargeo (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User:TheRingess and my report to AIV

It's inappropriate to report an editor because (s)he's been editing since 2005?? What're you smoking? --vvarkey (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing without being accused of vandalism since 2005. I am seeing things clearly, while you are unable to understand that removal of BLP violations is not vandalism. Plus, I don't smoke. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem

I don't see any reason to mention it on the AfD. I might possibly haul a handful of AfD participants onto the complaints page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

From your comment here, you may not have noticed this closure. . . dave souza, talk 14:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I shall not be participating - it is now a completely different animal to the one I contributed to. I shall respect the final decision, of course. Thanks for the notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for taking action against Wikireader41.--Hj108 (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted, I was the admin who previously warned them. I note that they have had an unblock request denied - but I expect that they shall work out the correct things to say. Then all they have to do is abide by it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

82.1.157.16

82.1.157.16 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) previously blocked by you, now appears to be claiming that Wales does not exist. DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Is there a WP policy or guideline regarding editing to wishful thinking? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who enjoys going through long lists of contributions and has a good memory for previously blocked editors with similar histories? You can say I am assuming bad faith of this IP, but if it isn't a block-or-ban evading editor, I'll eat my hat. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You could try looking at the contribution history to WP:LTA, and see if there are any "enthusiasts" there who are helpful...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My hero

"22:12, 5 March 2010 LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) blocked Kmweber (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite." You are my hero. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You have my highest respect as well for your contributions, but I'm not convinced about the wisdom of this block. Please see my comment at User talk:Kmweber, and comment there if you wish. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As commented, I have no problems with my actions being reversed or varied. If you wish my comments, I will be happy to oblige. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to hear your comments. Unomi (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at Kurt's talkpage, fairly soon after posting my previous response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've posted to Luna Santin's user talk in support of LessHeard vanU's action. Durova⁴¹² 18:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My user's talk page

My user's talk page has been vandalized 200+ times and my talk page has been protected 10+ times. Can you protect it or keep an eye on it for me. - - Talk to you soon--Zink Dawg -- 05:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you want permanent semi-protection of your talkpage? You can then create a sub-page called User talk:Zink Dawg/IP discussion (or similar) and leave a link on your usual talkpage. Just keep the new page on your watchlist (I will, too, to catch vandalism) in case there is stuff you want to respond too. Or... I can watchlist your talkpage. Let me know when convenient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding right away. Yes, You can (permanent) semi-protect my talk page. I already created a sub-page called User talk:Zink Dawg/unprotected talk page. I created this page on November 21, 2009. The link has been on my main talk page for quite awhile now because my talk page is always been protected. Thank you for your help.--Zink Dawg -- 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I will watchlist the "unprotected talk page". LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this for me.--Zink Dawg -- 04:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

After the blocking of User:82.1.157.16, I've since noticed the presence of a very similar editor [33], editing in a similar way, occasionally on the same articles. He has also accused me of vandalism for reverting 82.1.157.16. He also accused me of edit warring after I reverted him only once at Bodmin Moor. Thought you might want to keep an eye on him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would comment that the inclusion of both "England" and "United Kingdom" in geopolitical locations was the compromised imposed upon both the English and Cornish nationalist orientated editors - as such Bainseyy is correct. The ip 82.1.157.16 seemed more intent in removing Cornish/UK descriptions and replacing them with English/UK ones. I do not think the two accounts are even close, and the Bainseyy is editing to the agreed version. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not here he isn't [34], or here [35]. By the way, I'm not accusing him of being 82.1.157.16, just that some of the editing is similar. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Missed the first one - although the previous version was also "wrong". I suggest seeing if they continue upsetting other editors with their contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "wrong" in the light of the consensus, which I confess I didn't know about. It's not terribly clear when looking at individual articles that any wider consensus is in operation. He says he's a new editor but he's confident enough to try to threaten me with a block and accuse me of edit warring and vandalism, which I'm pretty annoyed about. I agree we should see if he does anything else to upset anyone. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Welsh edits of the new account are suggestive. DuncanHill (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This one [36] might bother a few people. I've let it slide that this guy accused me of blatant vandalism with his 4th ever edit and edit-warred on my talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on what response there is, and if they conform to that advice. It is a fair question from a newbie, but not if from a nationalist orientated contributor. Let them provide their own rope/bridge, as the case may be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI: this user has now been added to this sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FootballPhil. Lots of anti-Welsh edits now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To your last message

I do not see what is wrong in having a few info boxes on my user page. As stated earlier aim 'NOT' trying to host a parallel encyclopaedia or trying to own the content on wikipedia. (It is out of historical interest) Mackay 86 (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

JWB

I just wanted to remind you that JohnWBarber was Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - someone you specifically single out for thanks when noting your admin reconfirmation on your user page. I'm not suggesting any impropriety on your part, but you may wish to declare this fact in the recent enforcement request (or recuse yourself) in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Please take this note as purely informational - no accusation of any kind is intended. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I know who JWB is/was - I seem to recall some interaction between him and Lar a few weeks ago. I also remember JWB/Noroton's comments at my RecFA regarding his and mine interactions. Without even looking I also am aware of a Barnstar on my userpage from Noroton, relating to the Sarah Palin edit wars. I see no reason to note any of this anywhere; people are free to attempt to make capital in respect of past interactions, or to recognise that two long term editors have crossed paths previously, or to ignore the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, this was purely an informative comment on my part and not intended to "make capital" or anything like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Block request

Hi! This College IP 195.195.28.4 has again deteriorated into a vandalism account, despite multiple warnings and numerous blocks over the years. Would it be possible to place a long term block on it, hopefully until after the summer break? Richard Harvey (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon review I decided on a further 1 year block, there being little evidence that sanctions have any effect of either the editing or the supervision of the editors. This way, vandal fighters get a 52 week holiday from having to clear up after these students. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

86.180.145.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Any idea what to do about this guy? This has been going on for some weeks now, with different IPs, and I'm not sure I can block him myself. Your considered advice would, as usual, be welcome. Rodhullandemu 17:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can block him yourself; obvious vandalism from obvious vandal is obvious. That said, I have enacted a week long block - with a note that continued disruption upon block expiry will indicate the address is stable and can safely blocked for longer periods. I see that other admins are watching your page and acting, so I think WP:RBI is the best option. Most sysops will check the block log, and increase tariffs incrementally when it is obvious that they are a stable addy. If any addy's get missed, either you can block it or request a third party to review and sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, he's just been back to my Talk page with another sally, claiming to have taught WillyOnWheels, so I've blocked for long-term abuse. He'll just shift IP again, of course, but I have no problems blocking in future. Cheers for that. Rodhullandemu 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that some addy's are repeated - i.e. edits/blocks from earlier days - so the range available to him might be fairly small. If repeat addy's are blocked for longer periods we may yet lock them out; otherwise it is RBI for as long as it takes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI RBI doesn't apply to me - or at least the rationale behind it doesn't. So revert if you want, block if you want, but you can't ignore. As for IPs, kinda depends. Some of the ones I use are static, some - like this one - are dynamic. Feel free to experiment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.47.235 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the personal nature of some previous edits done on Rodhullandemu's talk page, these IP's may also be socks from the same person:- 86.176.164.251, who had also vandalised other user pages and had been blocked by Rodhullandemu on 28 February 2010. 86.180.19.238, blocked today by Rodhullandemu, for 55 hours. 217.154.32.14 ('whois' on this IP indicates a possible place of work of the person concerned), last blocked, for 48 hours, on 2 March 2010 by Rodhullandemu, 79.67.154.13, after this user's only other edit, on Woogee today, he was blocked by J.delanoy, for 31 hours. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more, a review of Rh&e's talkpage history will indicate daily(?) ip's being reverted. WP:RBI weeds out the repeating addresses, and the ignore aspect does not feed the troll's appetite for recognition. I block half a dozen accounts most days - often more - and it is just the equivalent of the delete key on a word processor; nothing really serious, just removing a small mistake. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

173.81.182.46 on AIV

Could you please take at a look at the AIV post for 173.81.182.46. It has been overlooked by several admins in the past 45 minutes. This user is fresh off a three month block and already back to his disruptive editing and vandalism in some cases. I am asking you, as it appears you are online at the present moment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My posting is, I would note, simply a figment of your imagination... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, and this is all but a dream :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You, sir, Rock. Thank you very much for looking into that :) Take Care and Have a Great Day...NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: your note on my talk page

Thank you for the note. I just explained on Jehochman's talk page that I'd begun editing that note before the collapse. Only after I saved the article did I notice the collapse. I think the comment was constructive, and I object to the collapse, but I'm going to revert anyway. Now I've got to get offline. Real life calls. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism only IP

Hi! It seems like this user (70.60.242.114) has become a vandalism only account, with multiple warnings and a suitable candidate for a long term block as per WP:RBI. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of LHvU for now, I've taken a look at this, and although there is a multitude of previous vandalism, there is a long gap and we cannot assume it's now the same editor. For now, probably better to escalate warnings and then report to WP:AIV, but with a dynamic IP address, unless there is current vandalism it's unlikely any action will ensue. I will leave it to LHvU to take a different view should he choose to do so. Rodhullandemu 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This IP has a total of 45 edits, all of which are vandalism, the latest on 11 March 2010. He/she was blocked for 31 hours by NawlinWiki on the 9 February 2010, then returned to vandalise the same article the block was issued for after it expired. With no constructive edits from the IP is it really worth letting him/her continue unchecked and waste the constructive time of good editors in reverting continuous vandalism? Richard Harvey (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Rhae, there is not the pattern to indicate that the ip is the same individual as previously - even the recent related references to butt may be simply a common interest of pimply youths. Also, the address is not heavily trafficked. I would be reluctant to enact a long block just in case the next ip who edits from it is potentially a great editor. If this current one returns in the next 24 hours, then report them to AIV. A short block while they are active will stop the trouble, without effecting the hypothetical great editor of a few days hence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Kmweber's editing restriction

Since you commented in the sub-thread WP:ANI#Specific question growing out of User:Kmweber's recent edits to an AfD page and his subsequent block and unblock, i wish to draw your attention to WP:ANI#Proposed modification of restriction of Kmweber where I have proposed that his restriction be modified as discussed the the "specific question" sub thread. Your views would be welcome. DES ^(talk) 15:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood Floquenbeam's suggestion regarding my participation in noticeboard threads. As I understand it, what he meant was that I be permitted to participate on noticeboard threads directly concerning me, the person--that is, discussions related to something I did/didn't do or supposedly did/didn't do, so as to participate effectively and efficiently in my own defense. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I realised what F meant - but I am of the opinion that the temptation of any party to leave a barbed comment, it be responded to, and the resultant comments will result in you (and possibly others, but the discussion relates to you) being blocked from all editing for a shorter or longer time. If you have comments to make about discussions on the 'Boards, you can bring them up at a third party's talkpage and they can pass it on - the potential of poor choice of phrases is then reduced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair enough concern, but how often (in my case, especially) has that actually happened? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 03:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Often enough, and potentially more in the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits on Susan Baker

Why did you revert edits by Lizettesantander (talk · contribs) on Susan Baker. They didn't do any harm, and it seems to me the second image is less likely to be copyvio than the first which is a scan. Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

When I reverted the image file introduced by the editor came up as a redlink - it seems to have since been resolved - so I returned to the version with the old image. Whether it was a memory cache issue, or the image was still being uploaded, I don't know. Since the file now shows, it is no matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That certainly works. Thanks for the patience. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're about

You and I are probably the only regulars with the background to clear this mess up painlessly, and I'm not going to be available - if you get the chance could you keep an eye on it in case it gets shouty? – iridescent 15:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever see the slanging match I got involved in over Fatal Microbes/Donna Bane? A long time ago, so hopefully I can more succesfully moderate my passion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Proposal:_sockbagging

LessHeard,

I was trying to understand why my IP address was not allowed to edit, and ... for some strange reason, I was checking to see what the global warmers had been up to see whether they were behind it. I noticed the above section on William Connolley's user page, and this seems to be a blatant attempt to hand out blocks left, right and centre knowing that innocent people will get blocked in some kind of sadistic pleasure they get from making everyone else's life worse.

And whilst I'm about it, can I say thanks for doing something about William Con... because I've watched this individual abusing wikipedia for a very long time and the fact that no one did anything about him is the main reason I won't edit under my real name any longer - actually I don't think I edit much at all now - except, I wanted to make a helpful comment today and some idiot has blocked me for some unknown reason, and why oh why do I somehow know William Con... is very likely to be behind it? Isonomia (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is WP:Exhaust?

You've got a red linked policy in your recommendation on results in my case. I would, at the very least, like to have a chance to read the policy while the case is open. Could you fix the link because I can't find the policy by searching. TMLutas (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I haven't been able to track it down, yet. Give me a while. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't find it, yet. I remember a policy/guideline saying that consensus is not a matter of wearing down the opposition by arguing every detail - but I cannot presently find it. When I do, I will provide you with a link. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the numerical imbalance between CAGW advocates and skeptics I've seen a great deal more wearing down coming from the other camp. I never thought it was sanctionable especially since the majority does it in rotation. I look forward to learning more about this rule, whether it applies to my conduct (I never intended to do such a thing) and where else it might apply. Hopefully you'll also look at it and if the policy doesn't apply withdraw it from consideration. TMLutas (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps LHvU was thinking about WP:TPG#YES, "Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion." Or perhaps not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That is the one! I would note to TMLutas that I commented that voluminous comments might be mistaken for an attempt to exhaust the other party; not that this was the case. I would, however, recommend the link provided by SNHB as it has useful advice on how best to present arguments within a discussion. I also note the comment about the attritional nature of much of the discussions within the probation area - this is something that is difficult to combat when rules are otherwise adhered to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Now available for your quoting pleasure; WP:EXHAUST.   pablo_hablo. 21:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it possible to place it closer to that particular line? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's done it.   pablo_hablo. 21:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the red link and confirming that Pablo X's redirect is correct.

The only accusation remotely relevant to a charge of WP:EXHAUST seems to be charge number three, that I engaged "in circular discussion to exhaust the editors to consensus". Do you really think my treatment of the 9 separate rules, guidelines, and essays lacked focus and/or were not driving towards a resolution? I actually misremembered TS' post when I wrote the #3 diff. He actually agreed that weight, not RS was the appropriate standard in response to Jc3s5h's assertion that all peer reviewed papers are citable. It was this admission to somebody else, not exhaustion, that led to my conclusion almost two weeks later that we were at consensus and only then did I make the edit. The relevant text is included below.

In the context of the Reliable sources guideline, "reliable" means good enough to cite in an article. Sources that are not reliable are so bad they shouldn't even be mentioned in articles. Publication in a respected journal makes it acceptable to cite it on Wikipedia, but the way the information from the article is presented would depend on all the available information. Also, not all subject matter gets as much attention as global warming. Obscure subject matter will not receive as many citations, and the literature on obscure subjects might not be well-enough indexed to find any cites that do exist.

If one were to compare it to a trial, a reliable source would be analogous to admissible evidence, and other sources would be analogous to inadmissible evidence. Naturally one piece of evidence does not automatically determine the verdict. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think this is more a matter of due weight. There's a vast preponderance of scientific opinion that global warming is a real problem, and this opinion is based on the weight of evidence. There are occasional outliers in the academic press, which gain news value, but to be honest mostly blog value because of their exciting, grassy knoll attraction. --TS 00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You certainly are free to disagree that I've been convincing but if I'm to be sanctioned on something it's something I've actually done and been charged with and that I at least understand where the disinterested admins think that I've gone wrong. TMLutas (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I really think you should re-read my comment at the enforcement page. I said

should be advised that over long discourses might be mistaken by others as attempts to WP:Exhaust the opposition

(my bolding and underlining) There was no question of anyone being sanctioned, just a suggestion why voluminous responses should be best avoided. I trust this clarifies matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting antsy that I'm about to be. First time I've gone through something like this... My apologies. TMLutas (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Dave Clark Five

Could you have a look at the recent editing on this article, which seems almost exclusively to be a ping-pong between Dave Clark's alleged birth year. Frankly, I think either date is sourceable, although the editors involved seem to conveniently ignore every Wiki protocol. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks! The most recent spat seems to be between MrDubbing, a long term and rather single minded but uncommunicative editor, and an ip who likewise edits little else. I note that there was an ip earlier who made much the same edit, but also credited a song as being written by someone other than Clark - who was also reverted by MrDubbing. I took a peek at the Dave Clark article, which I note is somewhat calmer and has had the 1942 birthdate for some period.

What to do? You say that both dates are sourcable, so it is unlikely that either editor will agree to the other being mentioned because their source backs their position - and that is assuming that they are minded to discuss the matter anyway. I would suggest that I could protect the article, on the basis of an ongoing edit war, so neither can edit it and hope they will lose interest - I would be inclined to protect it in the "1942 version", since it does not jar with the article on the individual.
Mostly, I want nothing to do with the article - since I think the subject is one of the most over-rated purveyors of mediocre bland pop muzak that ever grabbed hold of the coat-tails of a passing trend and got lucky.
So, are you going to try to talk to them or are we just going to lock the article up? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but how dare you ridicule the DC5 ! They were surely 'hugely over-rated purveyors of mediocre bland pop muzak'. They made Freddie & the Dreamers look like Chuck Berry. Anyhow, after my tilde thingy below, this is a message I intend to send to the warring parties talk pages. Deal or no deal ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that there has been an ongoing editing war on this article, surrounding Dave Clark's birth year. I can find sources here - [37], [38], [39], [40], to point to him being born in 1942.

Conversely other sources support 1939; such as here - [41], and [42]. I also suspect that at least one of the warring parties is really John Briggs, the Dave Clark 5 fan club secretary, who stated (in an e-mail to me back in December 2009) that he has a copy of Clark’s birth certificate confirming 1939.

Can I therefore make several points:- 1. The ongoing editing tit for tat is ridiculous, and is damaging to Wikipedia’s reputation. 2. All parties are hiding behind a smoke screen, and are not quoting sources for their edits in contravention of Wikipedia:Verifiability. 3. All parties are violating the Wikipedia:Edit warring guidelines, and are in severe danger of having their editing rights removed by an administrator. 4. I am getting increasingly bored of watching this ongoing dispute, and have informed a Wikipedia administrator to explore the previous editing history. You should be aware that further disruptive edits will almost certainly result in individual bans, or the article itself being blocked from being edited.

My suggestion, unless irrefutable and undeniable hard evidence is produced, is that the article quotes both dates, something along the lines of "born in either 1939 or 1942, according to various sources".

Please do not ignore this message, continue as before, or try to convince ME either date is correct (certainly not without producing some hard, tangible, reliable evidence). If this message seems unduly draconian, then please read Wikipedia:What it is not. The simple message is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and ultimately does not tolerate ongoing bickering, edit warfare, and unsourced edits.

One final point. Why does Dave Clark (musician) quote 1942 virtually unchallenged since September last year, when the band article is continually subjected to a lengthy ping-pong of counter claims ?

As I suspected, the biography at the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame lists a 1942 date, and I wouldn't be surprised if rock encyclopedias such as the NME Book of Rock list the 1942 date. This is a case where we would look closely at the provenance of the competing dates. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Tony, which sources note the 1939 date? If it is an authorised biography, or Rolling Stone magazine, or NME Book of Rock (DC5?), then it might be given "even billing", but if it is other sources and the 1942 date is quoted by the authorative references it should - in my opinion - read "1942 (other sources say 1939)". Other than that, I think the above wording is fine, and I will act as that admin if necessary.
I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the truth is that DC was born in '39 but said '42 at the start of his career to appear younger to his potential fanbase; 1939 would have made him older than Lennon, but he would have been "21" when he first hit the charts with the later date. However much I rightly despise the music, I do acknowledge DC was always a canny businessman. Not that it matters, of course, since verifiability trumps truth.... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Have weighed up the evidence, I have sent the amended message (below) to three or four recent DC5 editors. There is overriding evidence for 1942, and I have inserted two printed source, reliable references, in the article to this effect. We will see what develops. Thanks for your help. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that there has been an ongoing editing war on this article, surrounding Dave Clark's birth year. I can find numerous on-line sources, such as here - [43], [44], [45], [46], to point to him being born in 1942.

Conversely very few sources support 1939; such as here - [47], and [48]. I also suspect that at least one of the warring parties is really John Briggs, the Dave Clark 5 fan club secretary, who stated (in an e-mail to me back in December 2009) that he has a copy of Clark’s birth certificate confirming 1939. Whatever the merits, this unverifiable source is not admissible on Wikipedia.

Can I therefore make several points:- 1. The ongoing editing tit for tat is ridiculous, and is damaging to Wikipedia’s reputation. 2. All parties are hiding behind a smoke screen, and are not quoting sources for their edits in contravention of Wikipedia:Verifiability. 3. All parties are violating the Wikipedia:Edit warring guidelines, and are in severe danger of having their editing rights removed by an administrator. 4. I am getting increasingly bored of watching this ongoing dispute, and have informed a Wikipedia administrator to explore the previous editing history. You should be aware that further disruptive edits will almost certainly result in individual bans, or the article itself being blocked from being edited.

My considered solution is to quote the overriding evidence supporting 1942, and have edited in reliable, third party references from two distinct reference books to this effect.

Please do not ignore this message, continue as before, or try to convince ME that 1939 is correct (certainly not without producing various hard, tangible, reliable evidence). If this message seems unduly draconian, then please read Wikipedia:What it is not. The simple message is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and ultimately does not tolerate ongoing bickering, edit warfare, and unsourced edits.

One final point. Why does Dave Clark (musician) quote 1942 virtually unchallenged since September last year, when the band article is continually subjected to a lengthy ping-pong of counter claims ?

---

I am sorry to clutter up your talk page with the following, but these are copies of e-mail messages I have received concerning the year of birth. I do understand that this is not your Mastermind specialist subject, and will full understand if you sub-contract the work to another Wiki administrator, or experienced editor. However, I would very much appreciate a balanced, knowledgeable, third party comment on all this before, I respond to the sender of the bulk of this material. Thanks, I hope you will understand. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(December 2009 e-mail from John Briggs) - "I said in my follow-up 1930 was a typo, it is 1939. I have run the DC5 fan club for many years and run the website www.dc5bitsandpieces.com . I am well known as probably THE expert on the group. It has always been known that the 1942 date given way back in the 60's was incorrect.The same record sleeves etc also gave the other members of group's birth years incorrectly, but for some reason you've accepted the alterations to those and printed the correct info. I have a copy of Clark's birth certificate, the info is also available on line at Ancestry.co.uk. His mothers maiden name was Bartlett. The source you give is NOT a reliable one, while Gordon Thompson has a good general knowledge about pop music quite frankly he knows naff all about the DC5. I really don't know what else I can give you to show that 1939 is correct but birth certificate's don't lie".

(March 2009 e-mail from Lynda) "Dave Clark's birth record.doc This is a copy of the page on which Dave Clark's birth was registered. His entry is 6th from the bottom. I am not J Briggs but you can find more proof here: http://www.thedc5.com/dc5_003.htm You cannot have evidence that he was born in 1942 because he was not. His birthdate is 15 December 1939."

(as above) "I was disappointed you did not see fit to respond to my email. Let me first assure you that I am no saboteur. All I want is to read the truth on Wikipedia and the entry for the Dave Clark Five is far from that! Obviously you are not a fan of the DC5 or you would have seen the errors for yourself and in particular, you would know that Dave Clark was indeed born in 1939 and not 1942 as he claimed in all the publicity material for the group back in the sixties and indeed still tries to maintain now. The Wikipedia entry states that the group started off in 1959. In fact, they started two years before that as the Dave Clark Quintet. The line up was different and only Rick Huxley and Dave Clark were retained in the final line up which became famous as the Dave Clark Five. The original group, who played their first gig (or whatever it was called in those days) at the Cissbury Road Library, Tottenham on 25 October 1957. I cannot produce evidence of this as I sent my only copy of the michfiche from the Tottenham Herald to the man who ran a Dave Clark Five site. But I did see it for myself. I spent almost a whole day trawling through the archives of the Tottenham Herald and found no further mention of the group until 1960 which, of course, was because Dave, who was 18 in December 1957, was called up to do his national service. The first gig by the new line up appears to have been on 30 January 1960 at the Corn Exchange in Hertford.

Back in the sixties, Dave also claimed that Lenny Davidson’s birth year was 1944 but this has now been altered on most sites to the correct year of 1942. Another fallacy being perpetuated by the Wikipedia article is that Dave Clark had some hand in writing the group’s hits. In fact, he never wrote a word of a a lyric nor a note of music. Mike Smith wrote Glad all over on his own and several other hits were written by Lenny Davidson. Ron Ryan also wrote several songs for the group and Les Reed did too – also playing piano on some of the records.

This can be backed up by looking at these two sites: http://ronryanmusic.com/ http://www.lesreed.com/

You will also find more of the truth on: http://www.thedc5.com/Home.html (particularly on the forum where Ron Ryan is a regular contributor) and http://www.Voy.com - spam filtered out -.com/174078/

I notice on your Wikipedia page you state that you are 55. If that is current, you would have been 9 years old when Glad all over went to number 1 and I recall that, in those days, 9 year olds did not have much interest in pop music. I, on the other hand, was 15 and had already been a fan of the DC5 for several months. I have been a fan ever since and am always keen to hear more information about the group. Sadly, it seems you have only looked at the sites which have got all their “facts” from sources which produced only the publicity blurb put out by Dave Clark. They do not get anywhere near to the truth. If you want the truth about the DC5 then take a look at the two sites mentioned above. The facts on those sites are put there by people who actually knew the group, not strangers who have picked up half truths here and there.

I still love the group and I hate to see all the ridiculous half-truths perpetrated by sites where people have not bothered to check out facts – Wikipedia being one such site."

(as above) "Further to my previous emails, I have just foudn the following article on Wikipedia which confirms that the attachment I sent you does show Dave Clark's true birth date in 1939. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Dave_Clark_Five#Birth_Dates_for_DC5_Band_Members

I don't expect an apology but I do expect the main DC5 article to be altered accordingly".

It is a thorny one, but perhaps it is best to explain that with Wikipedia it is verifiability, not truth that counts - and the majority of authorative references that we use state 1942. We are also not expert enough to determine the validity of a birth certificate, or register of births. Perhaps the best option is to suggest that they Wikipedia:Contact us so they can speak with an WP:OTRS volunteer who is more used to resolving such issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

U!

...sorry about that. I mistyped it every time. I fixed it most times, I hope. I'll fix more if I note them. However, I'll trade you 10 Stephens for every LHVY, and it will barely make a dent in my supply. On a related note, for hysterical reasons I don't really use the SS initials, but rather go by StS or STS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, my bad - by your name spelling I should have realised that SS could be offensive; in my line of work it is usually short for Stainless Steel... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So you don't call me a Nazi, but you call me a rat? Well, it's some progress, I guess ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Or Steam Ship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely random question

Is there any story behind your username? ATren (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it something you've shared publicly (if so where?), or care to share? :-) ATren (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very dull; I got into the interwebs a few years ago at a time I also started balding and shaved my head in one last gesture of rebellion - so I adopted the nick LessHair vanU. As I joined other sites I used variations with a passing reference to the medium (my YouTube name is "LessAired vanU", my Wikipedia Review variant is "LessHorrid vanU")... I thought, when I joined this place, that I would be one of the quiet background guys who may make a few comments that few would not ignore, hence LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks for explaining. It's not dull at all; yours is one of the most unique usernames I've every seen, and I just couldn't for the life of me conceive how such a name could be chosen. Now when I see it I can enjoy its quirky uniqueness without the nagging compulsion to figure out its meaning. ;-) ATren (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

What would you call a "pro GW viewpoint" [49]? It is a real question, I mean if someone limited their view to the basic facts at the beginning of our featured Global Warming article which "have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries." would that in your view be a "pro GW viewpoint". FWIW I am personally slightly cynical of scientific consensus but "all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" is a fairly hefty group to define as a POV rather than NPOV. --BozMo talk 18:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be as in anti skeptic/denialist viewpoint, but possibly a more good faith or open minded one than being simply a denier of skeptic viewpoints (or skeptic toward denialists). I would comment, as it says on the WP:NPOV page, that NPOV is itself a viewpoint - so even if the NPOV is to agree that green is go, agreeing that that is the case is a POV... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to propagandize in favor of a good or true position, while still being propaganda (and of course sometimes a person who supports the good and true position may even oppose doing so in a particular venue). At least in my view, if you'll pardon me for dropping in, we have about four major viewpoints on Wikipedia: 1.) Those who want to promote the skeptical view as far as possible, 2.) Those who want to remove or denigrate the skeptical view as far as possible, 3.) Those who are concerned we are going too far in removing or denigrating the skeptical view in an unencyclopedic fashion, and 4.) Those who think the current balance is correct. A person can reasonably be in the third or fourth camps, I think, but it seems to me to take some "denial" not to see that there are also editors in both of the first two. I suppose one problem is that people in the latter groups sometimes support those in the former, simply because they're afraid not doing so will (further) upset the balance. It's all a continuum, of course. Mackan79 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Mackan79. FWIW I guess I would be concerned that we are going to far in denigrating skeptics which is another shade. LvHU not quite sure I understand will come back with a coffee and muse over it. --BozMo talk 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

4.) is fine, providing those editors are open to consensus changing. 3.) is fine, providing it is recognised that denialism/skepticism is not supported by the majority of the scientific community.
My view is that scientifically the case for anthropological related climate change is well made and fits most models to a very high aspect, almost as much as the professional consensus regarding the medical viability of abortion procedures - the difference being between a medical/scientific description of these issues and an encyclopedic one. The WP GW article presents the scientific viewpoint, and the rationale behind it, with only passing reference to the world wide debate. I note that there is not even a brief history of the subject of global warming within the article - it simply presents the majority scientific viewpoint, with no description of how they came to this conclusion by reference to past concerns (acid rain? coastline erosion? poor air quality? general environmental issues) there is surely a history of why people started constructing models based on temperature records and co-relating them to changes in the environment. In contrast, the WP abortion article provides many different opinions upon the practice which are not related to the clinical procedure, because the world viewpoint is not restricted to the medical procedure. It, of course, brings with it its own issues - but it is a more comprehensive article than GW is. GW should, I feel, have that breadth of opinion also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A very good point about the history of climatology – it's very briefly touched on in climatology but as far as I've found there's not an article devoted to it. This history gives a good if somewhat complex outline, as far as I've read it. I've been looking into the famous hockey stick controversy and how it was seized as a centrepiece of the "it's all a hoax and we want all the emails and interim workings of climate scientists" activism that's bearing so much fruit today. A broader history would be very useful. On the wider topic here, as usual viewpoints should be described with due weight to majority expert opinion both on the mainstream view and, where applicable, on minority scientific views. Whether or not these minority views have considerable political support, as science they should be shown along with a description of how mainstream scientists receive the views. My understanding it that the mainstream is the opposite of a pro GW viewpoint, mainstream science considers GW and AGW to be severe threats which should be opposed, or at least accounted for with defensive adaptations of society and infrastructure. I think you meant a "pro mainstream climatology" viewpoint, as against minority views within that science, and the anti-science political views which tend to be fringe in scientific terms. A complex subject, very difficult to work on in the current circumstance of widespead and often deliberate disinformation.[50] . . dave souza, talk 22:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We have, of course, History of climate change science. I'm not aware that global warming science came out of the environmental concerns - on the contrary, Svante Arrhenius, who first correctly predicted global warming around 1900 was quite in favour of it (of course he also assumed Victorian rates of CO2 production, and hence a few thousand years before the effect would become noticeable). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I did try hunting though the main template and categories, but failed to find it. What do you think of the idea of an outline history section at the intro to the global warming article, and a link being added to the template at the foot of that page? . . dave souza, talk 23:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Link, absolutely. I'm less certain about the history section. It might be worth a try, but the article already suffers from information overload... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed a month or two ago and since then there has been a link to History of climate change science in the "See also" section. --TS 01:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you tell me...I've managed to finagle it into the navbox. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, that's a great improvement for people like me who don't think of the see also :-/ One possible way of briefly mentioning the history of the science would be a short introductory paragraph to the Debate and skepticism section, I'll think about that when working on something similar for the hockey sticks article. . . dave souza, talk 13:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LessHeard vanU. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Comments by uninvolved editors need to cease.
Message added 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Alteration of others' talk comments by User:Mbz1

Since you went to the length of officially warning me for striking through a single comment that was misleading a deletion discussion, you should be interested that Mbz1, who complained about the strike through, is now unilaterally removing the comments of 3 other people - [51]. Factsontheground (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I shall bring the matter up with them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(Just noting that the comments were not "struck through" - which is permissible if not encouraged - but were removed; which is not permissible and drew the warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

your message at my talk page

Hi LessHeard vanU, I was amused to find your message at my talk page. I removed it with edit summary: "I see no reason to respond nonsense", but then I decided I do have a reason, in order you will not repeat the same mistake again. So may I please ask you to get yourself familiar with WP:TALKNO and with WP:TPO#EDIT? In particular I would like to ask you to note those quotes from the policy:

"Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism.
  

So I removed harmful posts (were made to harm my reputation), PA (was called a sock) and (trolling) that BTW have absolutely nothing to do neither with improving of the article nor with the article itself. Anything wrong with that? If you have something else to add for that matter please do respond here. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I hope you do not compare factsontheground's removing of a legitimate comment posted at deletion request linking to the deletion request of a similar article with me removing the trolling, ungrounded comments about me being a sock from the article discussion page. As a matter of fact you should have warned factsontheground for posting those comments there in a first place, and then restoring them after I removed them, and you should have removed them yourself according to the policy I mentioned above. factsontheground has been wikihounding me for the last week or so (could prove it by request). It is regrettable you have chosen to surrender to the user demands.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• You could have collapsed them, or archived them, in the manner given in the guideline I presented - that the wording of the guideline you quote is so qualified indicates that it is the exception rather than the rule to remove them. If you have reason to believe that factsontheground has violated policy further, then present your evidence here or elsewhere. Sysops are supposed not to be biased; they try to resolve issues as they are presented - and not take sides. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• LessHeard vanU, I understand that you should be impartial. I hope you'd agree with me that the comments in question have absolutely nothing to do with the article, and were posted there with the only reason to cast a shadow of a doubt at my reputation. The tactic has succeeded once already: [52], and this is after check user came back "unrelated"! Do you believe I have a legitimate reasons to remove the comments? I believe I do, and more than enough. It would have been great, if you are to remove them yourself. Trolling should not be given a green light. It is the exception the policy is talking about. What say you?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I will look at them, but not "tonight" (which it is where I am). There is nothing to stop you, however, of editing them under the provisions of the guideline by either archiving or collapsing them - which is the point I have been attempting to make all along. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I did collapse them except they are even more visible than they were before: please scroll down, and look yourself here: [53], and BTW now, when you took faktsonground side, the user has became even more offensive, and writes about me "I believe that Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda". That user should be taken care off, and rather sooner than later. Anyway, thanks for promising to look into it, when you have a time.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• As regards the collapsing, it works because it is clearly noted as not being related to the discussion topic and can only be seen by being opened. Drama mongers would have found the comments anyway - since nearly everything is kept in the page histories. As for the racist agenda allegations, GWH has dealt with it. I realise it is not to your satisfaction, and I would have made a more specific requests to both of you, but GWH is the admin who has involved themselves in this matter and I am more than content for him to proceed in what he thinks is the best manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• I collapsed as was advised, but factsontheground first removed my edits [54], and then put the otiginals right back [55]. I removed them once again. What do you think I should do now?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, you are really impartial! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I have mentioned your name at ANI here. Unomi (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Wouldn't this be considered a personal attack =/? I mean granted removing an AIV is stupid but that seems like a direct violation of WP:NPA--SKATER ^Speak. 18:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, since it very carefully relates to the removing of the AIV report. I was not saying they are a moron per se, which may be a personal attack, but saying that they are one for thinking removing the report was going to be of any benefit. Of course, it was perhaps not the optimal thing to say and WP:RBI is in fact the best (and in my case, frequent) response... but... y'know, sometimes...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I find it hard to AGF when he knows he did something wrong, repeats the action and then removes the report, but that's the first time I've heard someone call a vandal out on how stupid they are.--SKATER ^Speak. 19:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about the A Nobody arbcom motion

Hello LHvU. What did you mean by 'the addendum is certainly bad?' For once I thought the Arbcom had found a Solomonic solution, but I see that you have doubts about it. Their motion implies that A Nobody can return if he is willing to face the music. Their motion implies that they will not try him in absentia, and they avoid putting criticism in print when he is unable (or unwilling) to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

My addendum, in that A Nobody is encouraged to avoid an ArbCom hearing by returning under a different name. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour album

There is a rogue editor who keeps insisting that the "Penny Lane" and "All Your Need Is Love" singles are not included in the Magical Mystery Tour album saying it violates a guideline while ignoring the complex release scenario which calls for consensus of which one does not exist. Several Creedence Clearwater Revival albums have singles which were released months before they were included in original albums. Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, are the tracks listed on the album upon original release? If so, then the prereleasing of them as singles is irrelevant. If the tracks were later added to a re-release, then that needs to be made clear. Does this help? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I'm come up with the solution which is to remove the singles section of the album infobox of the Magical Mystery Tour article as it is the core of the dispute. That does not seem to be an issue with a few original Creedence Clearwater Revival albums which include singles issued months before their inclusion in original albums. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, finally an important topic. If you go back to the very beginning "Love Me Do" and "Please Please Me" were released before the Please Please Me album. There's no indication that they were meant to be part of an eventual album by that name (especially at the time of "Love Me Do", the first release by a little-known group). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. For that reason, I've removed the singles portion of the Please Please Me album infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a prat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame me, blame that rogue editor mentioned at the top of this discussion. See the Talk:Magical Mystery Tour page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Block threat

Hello, can you point out which of these my comments are considered as personal attacks. They merely point out that there has been a discussion of a suspicious IP as a possible sockpuppet. Interestingly another IP has turned up on the same page to defend Mbz1. It's obviously a sock evading a ban or else they should get a proper account.

Secondly I find it shocking the number of personal attacks that Mbz1 has made against myself and others (including admins), whilst you (and other admins) haven't done a thing. Why haven't you lifted a finger about Mbz1 and now you threaten me with a block? It's ridiculous, beyond a joke. Factsontheground (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is a diff to Factsontheground's very first WP edit [56]. Nice job for a first edit. Notice how well the ref is formatted too. 173.68.240.19 (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Today I removed POV from Defamation (film) because it never mentioned that episode :"" Shamir discovers a noteworthy incident, in which African-Americans have stoned a Jewish school bus."? which is described in one of the sources. factsontheground reverted me with edit summary: "Undo vandalistic removal of sourced content", came to my talk page with that rant and then opposed my nomination on FP. It was the user's very first vote on FP images. If it is not wikihounding, I am not sure what is. Sorry for bringing that up to you, but somehow you got involved. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec - resp to Factsontheground) There you go - two personal attacks in your post above; unless you have proof per CU or WP:DUCK that someone is socking, saying so is a personal attack. Linking to a SPI request, where the conclusion was that there was no evidence without commenting that the case was unproven, is also a personal attack. You may believe that Mbz1 is or uses socks, but unless some independent editor comes to the same conclusion then it is not appropriate to make that accusation. As for warning Mbz1, I have indeed warned them about making personal attacks - specifically in relation to you. I have no problem in blocking either of you, or both, should you continue your petty squabble. It is by your (both of yours) actions that you will be allowed to continue editing or not, and I am only the the editor with the buttons that enact the sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You take me for a fool, don't you? You have never warned Mbz1 about her constant, vicious, disruptive personal attacks against me. Instead you have warned me for trying to stop people from altering my comments! What a joke.

Anyway, I didn't say that the IP was Mbz1's sock in my original comment. I just said that it was likely it was somebody's sock. How is that a personal attack?

I still can't believe you threatened me with a block for merely striking through a misleading, disruptive comment on an AFD yet you support Mbz1 collapsing comments just because she doesn't like them. Factsontheground (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(Responding to Factsontheground, Mbz1 & the IP) If you have concerns about socking, you should open a sockpuppetry investigation regarding the IP(s) or account(s) concerned. If you have concerns about inappropriate comments, you should let someone uninvolved in the dispute take the action on the comment if action is needed (even if it is merely collapsing). If you have concerns about the general conduct of the other party, you should use the appropriate steps in dispute resolution. If you think you shouldn't be blocked, but others warrant sanctions, then what you need to do has been spelled out for you so as to appropriately resolve your respective concerns. If you're not ready to do any of that, then it will end badly unless you drop your sticks and move on. In other words, I think all of you involved in this squabble are likely to end up blocked, until/unless you find more productive ways to resolve your issues, no matter how right or how wrong one party is. LHvU, sorry about my unsolicited intrusion here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Since LHvU is one of a number of administrators who seem to have Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) on their watch list, and since Factsonthegroung has done some complaining about me here, I do not see anything remarkable about making a short reply here. Previous to this I have not, as far as I can recall, done any complaining about Factsontheground anyplace on WP. My participation on the Kennedy article talk page was limited mostly to a short discussion with George. My editing of the article itself was limited to trying to make Mbz1's writing more understandable because English is not her first language. I added no content to the article.

I find it slightly annoying that Factsontheground is making accusations against me when he seems to have created a new article (now deleted) [57] the same day he created his account, and even before Nableezy had time to put the 'Welcome to Wikipedia' template on his talk page. That level of early proficiency in the technicalities of WP editing makes it seem possible that he is a sock. But there are other explanations possible, and I have no intention to pursue this further. 173.68.240.19 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your point?

(to WMC) I note you have not edited William Connolley... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC).

Yeeeeesssss... not recently, at least. What is your point? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Per AGF and your word, you are Dr Connolley. Per AGF and Lar's word, he agrees with AGW. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Err, no. I can prove my identity, and I can prove that I'm that person William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No need; we accept your word. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to, and should not. Let me make it clear, if it wasn't, that I don't accept your's or Lar's William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh God! A Green, and a Green in need of a haircut with no dress sense - why does that not surprise me?  Giano  21:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, Giano, this is a private argument - Dr Connolley completed the appropriate forms and filed them diligently - so I am afraid I shall have to ask you to withdraw. Oh, and please use the green crayon and not the purple in your application. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Have no fear LHVU I was not planning on staying, I have an aversion to nylon, they all wear it you know (saves little animals and exploited coton pickers) It's one of the first things I usually detect when in the presence. Anyway, I'll leave you to it.  Giano  22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The latter is an issue of your own making, and I can only note my opposing viewpoint. The first, however, is a matter of convenience. I refer to you as Dr Connolley or WMC not only because it is convenient, but because you requested it. I shall not try to convince you, but will only re-iterate that I am inclined toward both AGW and AGF - and in acting neutrally. I doubt either will ever convince the other, although I am intrigued that you should make this effort. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "this effort". Do you mean my attempt to understand your incomprehensible comment on the arbcomm page? According to your comments here, it was smoe kind of POINTy thing about AGF, but I still don't know what William M. Connolley (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of incomprehensible, what did you mean by "Lar feels the need to make these unsupported and apparently irrelevant claims; one wonders why"? Whether his claims are supported by on-wiki evidence, or not, is irrelevant. His point is still valid even if it was a complete facade. He has actually done a good job of teasing out one of the fundamental aspects to the problem on these pages. --GoRight (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

1rr violation (not yours) at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Just thought I should let some admin know. Hipocrite made three reverts (roughly the same edit) in 24 hours [58]. All were subsequently reverted by other editors. Not sure what to do about this, but it's being discussed here: User_talk:Hipocrite#1rr_violation. --Heyitspeter (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I contend none of my edits were reverts, and suggest that if someone alledges they are, they are free to show diffs. I additionaly have noted, and will note again that I am willing to revert any of my edits to that article given any serious request and reason on the talk page of the article or my talk page. Finally, and with great anger, I find that cherry picking an admin who hates me is tremendously bad faith. There is an enforcement page - feel free to request it, and I'll respond there. Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Hipocrite, the only "revert" was the one indicated as such - the previous edits being an exchange of descriptions working to a consensus. No 1RR violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter, please always file enforcement requests at the board for the sake of transparency. Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

English

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Is this correct now [59]? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment refactoring

With regards to this probationary thing [60] I have asked user:Atmoz to redact this [61] wp:pa on alex harvey. He removed my request [62] and did not remove his attack. user:GoRight has also asked him to remove this PA [63] Atmoz removed this with the edit comment of the things I don't care about, this is near the top of the list goright then reminded Atmoz of the probationary requirements [64] yet the PA has still not been removed. I ask you as an uninvolved admin to tag the comment as an Inappropriate comment Thank you mark nutley (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

GoRight is a troll, he gets reverted on my talk page without me reading it. I've asked him before to stop posting there, yet he continues. I do not have the Lindzen page on my watchlist (actually, I have no pages on my watchlist), so I had no idea anyone had a problem with that edit. If you have a problem with one of my edits, please tell me before refactoring. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thank you. A question as well :-) Here on the IPCC talk page [65] i collapsed a lot of bickering per the probation rule above, i said basicly wp:notaforum as i am unsure what this probationary measure is actually called. Sadly i was reverted by WMC. Is it not usual practice to collapse bickering on a talk page to help prevent further fighting? Atmoz, i posted on your user page to remove your PA, did you not read that either? mark nutley (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No. For the same reason, minus the request not to edit my talk page. Which you can assume effective now. -Atmoz (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Which reason is that? Are you also calling me a troll like you have goright above? Would you care to refactor your new PA`s please? mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That GoRight is a troll is well documented. You follow the same pattern. I'm just applying the duck test. -Atmoz (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not recall being asked to avoid posting on your talk page. If I somehow missed that, I apologize. I have now received your message and I will refrain from doing so in the future, required notifications and such excepted. I was only seeking to make you aware of the policy changes on the CC pages since you had previously stated that you weren't following CC activities for some time and I thought you might not be aware of them. I never even really took a position other than to urge you to adhere to the policy. --GoRight (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, LHvU, I'm not going to ask that you recuse yourself from all Climate Change probation requests, but I think it's a valid request that when requests to enforce the probation come to your talk page, and your talk page alone, you should direct those requestors to instead request action at the RFE page. This is the second time that a request has come directly to you - this time, the requestor directly linked to the section of the RFE page he was ignoring - it says:

Based on the discussion above I propose the following extension to the general probationary arrangements for climate change articles:

• Comments made in discussion which appear, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator or other uninvolved user in good standing, to violate the talk page guidelines, should be brought to the attention of the user making the comment with a polite note to the effect that refactoring or removal would be appreciated.
• If the user refuses, or does not respond within a reasonable time, an uninvolved administrator or other uninvolved user may tag the comments using {{Inappropriate comment}} or some other generally acceptable means.
• Deliberate reinsertion of refactored comments, by any party, will be regarded as disruption and may be sanctioned appropriately.
• Brief requests to review potentially inappropriate comments may be posted here (emph added). Debate regarding the degree of inappropriateness, results of review by uninvolved individuals or responses to those individuals on their talk pages, is strongly discouraged.
• This is not designed to deal with repeated or egregious violations.

It is certainly beginning to appear that sceptical editors believe you to be on their side and are approaching you directly in an attempt to avoid neutral review. Please don't allow this perception to continue. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)