Revision as of 20:26, 14 October 2008

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

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

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

The Holding Pen

Secret trials considered harmful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So whats going on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And FT2 is terribly busy

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

I haven't forgotten. Who knows if it will happen again or is happening now. OrangeMarlin 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2 is back secret activities. I can't believe it.OrangeMarlin 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

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

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

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

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

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

Current

Schools Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

That Bo Nordell paper

Could you fill me in with more details? I've removed the item after seeing your note. E_dog95' 10:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes: here. You'll notice thats my own blog, and a chatty item at that, so its not usable as a source, but I'm not trying to in this instance: I'm using it as an explanation of why we shouldn't use Nordell. Note that Nordell gets the waste heat terms correct; his error is elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for pointing that out. I may run another potential source by you later. E_dog95' 18:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent BAMS piece

I assume my addition of the JCLI paper you coauthored was reverted because a pre-publication version is already sourced later in the article and an additional source is desired. It seems like it squarely addresses the topic and in some detail, and is peer reviewed, but alas. Anyway, if you haven't seen it, the Nature Climate Feedback blog has an entry on your JCLI paper. Evolauxia (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to say that Gerhard Loebert (who replies on that blog) seems to be one of the weirder cookskooks. Most of the standard skeptics are pull-based (as in "we don't like AGW, let's find a reason, however, spurious, to deny it"), but Loebert looks like a pusher ("I have this new theory that replaces General Relativity. Now let's see how to tie it into hot topics."). He talks at a Stargate level, too - Galactic density waves, Zero-point energy, and oh, he has earthquakes triggered by events in the galactic center (there is that elusive tie between earthquakes and GW that User: GoRight looked for a while back). What I find depressing is that quite some people seem to take this serious. I don't know if that reflects on the general level of science education or on the cynicism of deniers about the general level of science education. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Word chosen intentionally - if you push that stuff, there is no "skepticism" left.

S: Cooks? Freudian slip methinks. I assume you meant kooks. E: Not JCLI but BAMS. You added which isn't me at all. Slip of the mouse? The correct ref is . I'll add that to the article to replace the preprint William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've sent them a mail recommending deletion of Loebert, so if you really like it you might want to keep a copy on the off chance they follow my advice William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Type his name on Google, and you will find any number of nearly identical copies on various blogs (but, surprising for a theory of quantum gravity that is BETTER then general relativity, none in the peer-reviewed literature - no doubt there is a conspiracy somewhere). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Some praise for a great BAMS article is due here. Good job. I'm going to keep a copy of this in my desk and hand it out every time somebody comes running in with the latest denier BS. WVhybrid (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

William: Wow, did I ever confuse those two papers. I'm making a meek face at the moment. Evolauxia (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming definition

I see no way to get a good definition on Misplaced Pages without starting (fanning) an edit war. And no original research means that you can not counter the IPCC without references specifically critical of it. Perhaps it would be possible to get something published that discusses the various definitions, then that can be referenced. Even so, the best definition in the world will be removed in 6 months or less (information rot).

I am open to hearing your ideas on how to develop a definition that everyone else will reference.

To be clear, I disagree with the IPCC definition (the way I worded my comments could be read the other way, sloppy of me). Q Science (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, good. We're in agreement on that at least. Its difficult to work on this, though, with, ahem, various others putting their oar in. Things will settle down, people will get bored, in a months time we can come back to it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I for one plan to bow out in hope that the two main actors move along after not getting the reaction they crave. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jennavecia

Check yourself. لennavecia 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't go around protecting pages watched by large numbers of experienced admins on the basis of prot requests without careful consideration William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I did carefully consider my action. There were various changes being reverted, including the edit warring over one section in particular. At one point, you came in and made a wholesale revert with an edit summary that, to me, reeked of ownership. While no one is near 3RR, there is clearly a dispute going on and the back and fourth needs to stop while discussion takes place on the talk page. Furthermore, you should know better than to revert another admin's actions on an article with which you have a long established history without discussion beforehand. لennavecia 20:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)