Revision as of 20:14, 1 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)

Current

Mediation

I've signed on as mediator for the MedCab case Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-08 State of Fear. If you are agreeable with that, would you be willing to begin with an opening statement on the case talk page? Sunray (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Please don't remove comments

William, what you're doing is against our standard guideline, is disrespectful, and will possibly make a tense situation even more so. You are quite correct that Eleland has not indictated he wants people to "chatter all over his talk page." Most editors have not made such a declaration. To that end, you could simply go on a blanking spree of user talk pages, arguing that they had not specifically asked for "chatter." There is an active discussion on the page, and I think it's productive. You are free to disagree, but not free to continually remove it.

I have to say I'm a bit shocked by this: you are a long-term editor and I have generally respected your contributions/opinions over the years, with only a few exceptions. But what you're doing now is needlessly provocative and insulting, and I'd like to respectfully ask you not to delete my comments, and the comments of the other editors, again. Eleland is a big boy, and can do what he likes with his own talk page. IronDuke 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, of course, and it seems I'm not alone . I have several reasons for doing what I did: least said, soonest mended was one of them. The other was that user talk pages are usually for talking *to* an editor; but that section has degenerated into people arguing with each other over Eleland's head. Thats not right William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

e.g. and William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Its rightness can only be determined by the user whose talk page it is. You would respond poorly, I think, if I trawled through your talk page comments and started removing ones I felt were "chatter," or that could not mean the narow definition of talking "to" an editor. I find your actions odd, but the actions of the admin who restored your deletion were not; they were fully unacceptable, as they involved removing criticism of highly contentious action he had taken in regard to that user. IronDuke 19:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Errrm, disagree I'm afraid. That discussion had degenerated. If you talking about COI, then you have one too, as you were restoring fanboi comments, as I noted in the diffs above William M. Connolley (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely, you jest. You think it was my intention to restore it for those two comments? The discussion hadn't "degenerated," Nishidani and I were in the process of a frank exhange of ideas. Nothing wrong with that. IronDuke 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, I suggest you either get Eleland to defend your intrusion on his talk space, or find the appropriate article talk page to continue the discussion. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't about an article, so there wouldn't be an appropriate article talk page to take it to. I very much appreciate your input, Skyemoor, but could you familiarize yourself with the situation before weighing in? Thanks. IronDuke 20:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with S. If ID and N are in the process of a frank exchange, do it on your talk, oor N's, or some other suitable place. If you and a friend walk into a pub, its rude to sit down at someone else's table and continue your argument while they are hoping to enjoy a quiet pint. Just because they are too polite to tell you to go elsewhere doesn't make you right. And no, I didn't suggest you restored the talk just to get the comments back. I'm just saying that if there is COI, you have it too. Least said, soonest mended would be best here too William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can solve this. There was a discussion between iron Duke, Jaakobou and myself. It has taken place. I have withdrawn, as I think already for some time, everyone has said what they have to say. Given I undertake not to rejoin the conversation, there is no longer an adversarial interlocutor, and therefore further remarks would only consist of a series of affirmations by one side. Gentlemen, let's drop it, and leave the eventual state of the page, now that three admins have ended the discussion by eliminating the chat, to Eleland. Good evening Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)