Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:16, 4 June 2010

Messages

Please put messages at foot. I will delete them when I have read them. If you are replying to a message I left I don't mind where you reply but try to keep conversations together. If you are offering to help with the Schools DVD I would be very glad to hear from you. There is loads to do at present and we are working through the new subject index:

Art Business Studies Citizenship Countries Design and Technology Everyday life Geography History IT Language and literature Mathematics Music People Religion Science

The new selection of articles is about two weeks away. We are still hand checking version numbers (yawn) and still aiming for about 5500 articles to fit on a DVD. Just to update the selection of articles has just moved off wiki to allow a quicker automated run but it will come back. --BozMo talk 06:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars

Thank you for the appreciation which I have moved off as they clutter the page. --BozMo talk 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion re the most recent Probation enforcement request

Might you temper the comments regarding other peoples perception of prior interaction? The recent questioning of the meaning of uninvolved is just that, recent. It has not had any real traction, and will not if civilly kept to that venue. The practical application of uninvolved admins is proven by our deeds only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC) (Yeah, I know... you have had to hide the matches from me before too)

Sure but which are you refering to? The bit about SV was intended as humour but if you think people will take it as seriously then I will strike it--BozMo talk 05:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Kwuel

Apparently I've been kwuel to you . What do you think? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette_alert

Courtesy notice ... I expressed my concerns about the above here. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#William_M._Connolley.27s_hounding_an_admin Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Roger on the delete This was the best way I could express my concerns. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine and I do appreciate the thought but I deleted to avoid wasting community time. --BozMo talk 20:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer

Thank you for your note and kind words, BozMo. They are very much appreciated, particularly as I'm finding myself writing for enemy, in that Singer's views and mine are probably diametrically opposed.

I'm going to stop working on the article for now, as WMC's editing of it is getting worse. He has now removed the entire Further reading section and categories, calling them spam, though the FR section contained only material from mainstream news organizations, and the categories were all straightforward. All one can do in a situation like this is revert, but reverting is not wise with the page under probation. I've posted about it to the admins on the probation page, but in the meantime I'd prefer to stay away from the article itself.

Again, thank you for the feedback, which means a lot to me. SlimVirgin 08:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see this before closing

I think two points need to be considered before closing that request; I put it in the admin section to get your attention but it was moved, and I just want to make sure you see it before closing. Thanks. ATren (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 17 May 2010

• News and notes: Backstage at the British Museum

• In the news: In the news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Essays

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Request for opinion

I draw your attention to . I don't think that reflects your opinion, or the balance of opinion on the RFE page. I invite your opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it does not appear to reflect the balance of opinion on the RFE page. I withdrew from the discussion; FWIW my involved opinion is that the diffs presented did not provide an adequate reason for an article ban (and I happen to think an indefinite duration is a bit OTT). If you want advice as well, drop it, it doesn't matter and being a statesman about it may be a good thing to point to at some point in the future. --BozMo talk 21:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment at RFAR

Your comment here appears to be misplaced, as Lar is not mentioned in the matter you've posted it to. Please take a look. Risker (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep thanks, moved it. --BozMo talk 06:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sad?

You're expressing sadness at not banning somebody from editing an article? Please think carefully about that. You wouldn't be finally internalising all that anti-Connolley rhetoric, would you? The fact that one of your fellow editors is not editing an article in a harmful way is good news, not bad. Tasty monster (=TS ) 09:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I am internalising all of Connolley's anti-BozMo rhetoric? I am happy that he gives as good as he gets from me and takes stuff in the spirit intended but I agree it is not a good idea encourager les autres. --BozMo talk 09:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that he's unnecessarily abrasive, though the enforcement pages have been such a mess lately that I may have missed instances where he attacked you. You seem to have correctly interpreted my comment as relating to tone rather than substance. I'm rather worried, incidentally, that recently the tone of interactions between the involved admins has become a barrier to its mission in improving the editing and interactions on talk pages within the probation area.

As I've repeatedly opined, I thought the probation took a wrong turn in the early days when a talking shop was set up. I think events are proving me right. The probation gave admins, as individuals, enhanced powers, and the talking shop has tended to neuter those same powers. It has also exacerbated a rather toxic pre-existing "Gun fight at the O.K. Corral" culture, although there have also been improvements in collaboration as the external political situation has improved and the fog of disinformation has cleared. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

all of Connolley's anti-BozMo rhetoric? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You really must only be asking for the pleasure of seeing it all written out, just so you can say it was all true and not rhetoric. Therefore I will just give you one , see thread, where my comments are "supine junk" and I am one of the "supine admins". I choose that one because I do not edit lying down on my back. You have also at various times called me (1) woolly, (2) pointless (3) uninterested in content and (4) made lots of sarcastic comments about "bending over backwards to help my friends" (meaning Mark Nutley) etc. None of which I mind at all but it does mean I am entirely happy calling it as I see it about your personality flaws :). And the repeated "wrong" "confused" etc I don't include perhaps at least there is an argument that they might be useful and accurate in a conversation. --BozMo talk 15:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, I suppose I could have wrapped it up in fine words but. Going over the "yes it was all true" doesn't seem terribly productive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine words not needed for me. If you can stomach producing any use them on others :). --BozMo talk 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In a hurry, again?

Once again you're proposing a close without waiting for a response from me. Consider the stuff before said again William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If we wait much longer the month's sentence will have passed before we get to a verdict. --BozMo talk 21:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd hoped to actually get a chance to reply to the new stuff before people started voting. LHVU has set a record by not only not waiting, but voting on other peoples behalf. Do you think I'm allowed to do the same, or can only "uninvolved" admins vote three times? (oh, except of course he put a ! before it so it wasn't a vote, oh no) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the outcome for you might be a lot better if you could manage to apologise for some bits. But I know you will struggle to see that. --BozMo talk 05:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Even answering questions (instead of accusing those asking of trolling) would have helped. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate change RFC

You wrote:

Living Persons who are viewed with contempt by the broad scientific community should still be treated with respect on WP and we do not always manage that.

Can you give an example? Thanks. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a little tricky because I would have to violate BLP policy by naming someone "viewed with contempt by the broad scientific community" which is a subjective OR judgement. This list though contains quite a few individuals whom at one time or another have not been treated with respect by Misplaced Pages, for example by giving prominence to criticism of them on scientific blogs or undue weight to their errors or faults. The treatment of them mirrored coffee-time conversation in academia but that is not how we should treat them here. We are working on it and certainly it is better now than in the past. --BozMo talk 08:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at, but it's not clear to me how best to handle the issue. That article you linked looks like an improper POV fork to me, since it doesn't present opposing points of view to the cited statements, where in some/many/most cases I'd expect the opposing views to be better supported by reliable sources than the statements themselves. Thanks. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't

do this kind of thing please William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you rather I blocked you for a personal attack? Time to grow up. --BozMo talk 08:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't. Rules is rules. PA's directed at blockers (and by implication, sanctioners) are excused William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep I could. The community gives considerable leeway to heat of the moment time reactions to a block but this one is (1) in fact not a new sanction but a reduction in an existing permanent sanction to three months (2) you had seen coming for weeks and are expected to produce a calm reaction to. Plus, you are gaming the rules to get in a PA. I strongly advise you for once in your life to back down. --BozMo talk 08:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about? THere is no permanent sanction to replace. This isn't a reduction at all, it is the imposition of a new thing William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So you believe this is... The discussion was a revisiting of that ban. --BozMo talk 09:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep but there was an immediate conversation opened on the probation pages to "revisit" the decision and reach consensus. "Revisit" was the phrase used and there was not double jeopardy allowed, same offence, continuation. Anyway restate my strike or I will be forced to work out how to set a block time not listed. --BozMo talk 09:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Geez, be sensible. Any sort of block is unjustified based on the context and venue (WMC's user talk). Post a comment on the user talk and leave it that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He keeps deleting my comment. I have done a 15 minute block including talk page. Don't worry it is good for him. --BozMo talk 09:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Having someone else decide what is good for you always works so well, don't you find? Stalin thought it an excellent idea William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, onto your point: there was no permanent sanction. There was a (re-opened) discussion, of course, but no santion in place. In no sense was the existing sanction "suspended"; it was entirely revoked, with an acceptance that it had been impose without cnosensus William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not agree with the page ban but gaming to PA is so pointless and it is so clear you are in the wrong that I wonder what kind of Thelma and Louise emotion has overcome you and how long to block you for your own protection. --BozMo talk 10:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh you guys. WMC could tone down the bluntness a bit. The strikeout is ok. A block would be ridiculous drama though. And the legitimacy of Lar's sanction is in significant doubt, since there's an RFC and an open arb request about whether he's uninvolved or not, with significant numbers of respectable editors saying he's not. Also, if BozMo is going to leave the strikeout in place, he should sign it, I think. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Let WMC say what he wishes on his talk page. The person it reflects on most badly is WMC. As for it being "Lar's sanction", afraid not, I implemented the consensus view. ++Lar: t/c 10:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

BozMo, I was surprised to see the "Giano unblock rationale" deployed, and deployed privately no less, as I hadn't thought we'd gotten to the point where WMC was that much of a VestedContributor. But that's an interesting data point for later...

Was there a reason you encouraged WMC to mail, rather than post an unblock request as normally is done? I actually think it likely resulted in less drama, but it's also less transparent. Might be a good tradeoff, come to think of it. Was that your thinking? ++Lar: t/c 10:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He had to appeal by email because I had blocked him from editing his talk page as that was the location of the PA--BozMo talk 10:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't review the block log so missed that bit. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Once WMC has been called a "wacko" by Lar and then is informed of a ban against him. A ban with consensus based on heavy arguing by Lar and pushing aside other admins using Lar's own personal definition of involvement. I am not in the least bit surprised by his reaction even if I agree it does not help matters. I do believe Lar is dreaming about the day he can personally inform WMC that he is banned from wikipedia. Followed by an indef block with a smiley face. Lar's personal involvement with this editor is very unhealthy. Polargeo (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the circumstances of the block and other people's behaviour I do not think civilityincivility is acceptable. --BozMo talk 10:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are dead right there. Civility should not be tolerated :) Polargeo (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the circumstances - ah, interesting viewpoint. How do you reconcile that with "but you did it first", as expressed previously? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There are always going to be shades of grey and what is a PA is not exactly the same question as what is incivility. His comment was good humoured and quite amusing for the rest of us, I would have made it too if I have thought of it. Your naked accusation of "malice" made the atmosphere worse and was written without a smile, or even with a tinge of irony. To be clear though I have wax effigies of both Lar and you on my desk and I plunge my paper knife into both when I see you winding each other up whether within or outside the rules. Sadly my voodoo powers are not yet sufficient for this to be effective so I have to use talk pages as a second resort. --BozMo talk 11:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In the context of some of Lar's other comments in the thread it is clear that Lar was exceptionally pleased with the result. That was not friendly humour, it appears to me to be gloating. Polargeo (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And yes I do class it as being a personal attack. If it was from another editor not an admin who is acting as uninvolved and trying to ban WMC it would have deserved a small slap on the wrist at the time and no further debate. I sadly note that because it is by Lar, other admins such as yourself are trying to sweep it under the carpet for an easier life. ie. few people want to stand up to Lar and his supporters because if they stick their head above the parapet such as I have they get it shot off (or get put down as disruptive nutcases). Polargeo (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. You could have complained to Lar about the "PA" and on my previous experience I think he would have been quicker to withdraw and apologise than WMC who tends towards "I would rather die than withdraw". Also unsure about this "supporters" bit, I don't see a backing group. And as a whole I think that both I and the broader community are giving both Lar and WMC equal (and too much) leeway on attacking each other and I think other problems would be easier to manage if that one were resolved. Which would have to be by brute force because neither is going to walk away voluntarily. If they were both prepared to drop personal comments about each other the little world of Misplaced Pages would rejoice. Anyway I have been around for as long as Lar, contributed as much and think we look each other straight in the eye with no fear (although not perfect understanding either). --BozMo talk 12:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What you say misses the point. I would not be overly concerned about an editor trading minor insults with WMC on his talkpage. I would not think it was great and I may choose to try and intervene. However, Lar is acting as an uninvolved admin arguing to get WMC banned. It is a totally unacceptable situation for an editor who has personally atacked another to be currently acting as uninvolved in this way. Polargeo (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo: How many times were you going to bring up that wacko thing? I said it was wrong but if it will help I'll say it again, just tell me where you think it would help. Meanwhile, you may want to review meatball:ForgiveAndForget... holding grudges isn't good for the soul. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar I will be satisfied that wikipedia is being best served when you cease to act as an uninvolved admin on cases involving WMC. Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC) In other words this is far from some grudge I am holding against you personally. I am truly concerned that you are holding a grudge against WMC and this appears to affect your approach all too frequently (ie you are clearly not uninvolved). Polargeo (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. Were you going to answer my question, though? ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you cease acting as uninvolved I will obviously never have to mention it again. Other than that, how do I know when it may or may not be necessary to highlight it as one of the many pieces of evidence in the many RfC's etc. I don't have a crystal ball. Polargeo (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) I would rather die than withdraw - stuff like you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

). Fair point, and you got extra merit points for your part in the outbreak of peace with ATren. --BozMo talk 13:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If they were both prepared to drop personal comments about each other the little world of Misplaced Pages would rejoice - I ignore Lar except when he attacks me William M. Connolley (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that view is universally held, but no matter. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that addressed to "If they were..." or to "I ignore..." ?--BozMo talk 13:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"I ignore..." (else I would have replied to where you said the former, and further it would be a sad day indeed were the former not true in the general case) ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You should ignore him especially when he attacks you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Boris is right, but I'm waiting for Bozmo's response to me William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through lots of history. So what about a promise for the future. "WMC promises not to attack Lar except attacked and agrees to strike through any violations of this so judged by a majority of Boris, Stephan and BozMo?" and if you manage it for three months I will unconditionally apologise for doubting it about the past? --BozMo talk 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through lots of history - not happy with this. Up above, you've basically accused me of attacking Lar, unprovoked. Now when challenged you back off to "oh dear I can't remember". Never mind; I'll apply the obvious interpretation. As to your offer: nearly fine. 3 months is too long. I suggest one month. "Attack" of course incldues "calls for, votes for, or imposes sanctions on" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did I imply "unprovoked"? --BozMo talk 16:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is implied in the quote I've already given, and by "giving both Lar and WMC equal (and too much) leeway on attacking each other". If you'd meant "In Lar attacking WMC and WMC replying to Lar's attacks" you'd have said that. Your quotes imply a symmetry that in my opinion is absent William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're having a hard time finding unprovoked attacks by Lar, then is a starter William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an attack? really? Voting on a sanction is an attack in your definition? I think perhaps you're settig up impossible conditions. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

At least the imagined absence of symmetry is symmetric... Realistically though you must realise that the "starting it" and the "carrying on" becomes impossibly blurred by incremental escalation from zero. And even if your own minds you are both convinced you each are completely in the right (which does seem to be the case, although both acknowledge their own minor human failings in the affair) neither can realistically expect me to agree with you carte blanche. And both should expect complaint when I notice unhelpful behaviour. --BozMo talk 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you be so kind as to provide a cite to WMC acknowledging a failing or error in his behavior in a meaningful way, or apologizing to someone for something he'd done? I've perhaps missed those. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

eg from earlier today. There are quite a few acknowledgements littered around the place but they don't always carry the consequences one might hope for. "I know I am in the wrong but I can win this" does feature from time to time; I used to have a friend who believe the rules of Rugby allowed you to punch people who were offside in a similar vein. --BozMo talk 17:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if we take that one as legit rather than sarcasm, it's not meaningful the way I meant. Meaningful doesn't mean saying "yes Boris" when chided, it means going to someone that one wronged and saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong, and I will try hard not to make that mistake again". I cannot recall seeing WMC ever do that. We are none of us perfect, but some of us realise it, and some, not so much. I've tried asking WMC if he sees anything he should do differently and I always get shut down. No introspection. At least, not here anyway. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree that this comment and a few others in edit summaries after it had shades of deliberate psycho-drama about them; he was being a little mischevious with me for the hell of it but I guess he guessed I wouldn't mind the ride. And of course partly that made me a little curious to know what his plan was and I went ahead expecting some surprise (which I got, I had not read the Giano ruling). But in general he does admit human errors, and strikes through without prompting. I can find plenty of others when I have time. --BozMo talk 18:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it is gratuitous does mention you but is there an implied criticism or jibe in it? If anything it is a little jab and your indulgent guardian angel (me, I guess). As you say with "friends" like that.... --BozMo talk 20:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's Lar winding up Polargeo which is two way recently but does it directly concern you? --BozMo talk 12:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I call BS, I was doing no such thing. It was a polite request and Polargeo seems to be trying to do better. Really, BozMo. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

@Lar: If it was intended as a polite request, which is possible, then it would have been better done separately to his talk page not mid thread. Changing the subject mid thread to something about personal style like that comes across like correcting grammar or telling someone they have spinach stuck in their teeth when they are in the middle of something, it is not sequitor and not likely to be welcomed at that moment. But I guess it depends a lot on how chatty the thread was. --BozMo talk 22:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; but I thought you were climaing that Lar was Good? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No Lar does have a tendency for little sideways digs off topic, as that diff shows. If he can find any chink in an editor's armour he will work away at it then open it up and exploit it. It is a political game. Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) I do not recall making such a judgement on anyone recently. I certainly never said he was without macula, nor you (obviously) and nor me (contrary to the popular immaculate misconception). Enough Latin puns; between you and Lar there are two different scores, one on behaviour and one on correctness of opinion. At present I rate 60-40 in his favour on behaviour and 40-60 in your favour on correctness of opinion. On behaviour recently he has been picked upon almost as much as you (often unfairly) and has snapped back less than you. On correctness broadly my judgement is that, whilst I listen careful to his reasoning, he is wrong about the root cause of the CC issue being a "club" and you are wrong about editing BLPs which you should self-recuse from (overall in the projects best interest). And my self assessment is that I am completely correct (inevitably) but I take far more pleasure than I should from the misbehaviour of others. As for Polargeo he needs to get laid or drunk or something... --BozMo talk 13:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet again you miss the point. This is not a matter of who is correct or has the moral highground Lar, WMC etc. As far as I recall WMC is not acting as an uninvolved admin and yet Lar is acting as such and is calling for WMC to be banned for editing the articles he has worked on for years. Lar has no right to be acting as an uninvolved admin. He does however, have every right to tell WMC to piss of. On another matter don't worry about striking your comments with respect to me I never take that much offense. Also I have never deleted anything from my talkpage as a matter of principle. My wife might have something to say about the getting laid bit as she is currently five months pregnant with our second child (first one is 14 months old today). As for getting drunk she may disapprove :)Polargeo (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I repeat another version of my earlier suggestion: what about if we agree neither of us should participate in probation enforcement on WMC specifically? --BozMo talk 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No of course it isn't a good idea because BozMo strives to be neutral where Lar does not even pretend to be and games the fact he has never edited a CC article along with his own definition of involved to stack enforcement in his favour. Polargeo (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this probation is far better off with both involved, despite my disagreements with some of their decisions. They have their opinions but they respect the other admins and respect consensus. ATren (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that probation (if it continues to exist in its current form) is better off with a wide range of admins including Lar and BozMo however, I cannot agree that Lar should act as uninvolved on cases involving WMC. Polargeo (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg

I wonder if you think the article Peter Duesberg has similar issues to those raised against some of WMC's edits to the Fred Singer article. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are clearly similar issues. That article uses stronger language than the Climate Change ones on less conclusive review sources and there are signs of deliberate attempts to insinuate him by association. For example, he was brought up in Germany during WW2 but why does it say he was brought up "in Nazi Germany" in WW2. The word Nazi is inappropriate. Am not about to pile in but I may try to read up more (or perhaps SV or someone a bit more expert on BLPs could be encouraged to look) --BozMo talk 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it didn't occur to me (and still really doesn't) that there was any issue with the mention of Nazi Germany. Duesberg was born in 1936 so the Nazi regime ended when he was 9 years old. He is certainly not tarred by the mention. If it conjures up any image at all, it's simply one of hardship in his childhood. The comparison I was asking about mostly relates to the coverage of his scientific work. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said the categorical counterstatements seem inappropriate. --BozMo talk 12:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by categorical counterstatements, but I do see some problems that I will try to clean up. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the comparison too far. First of all, I think Duesberg's article does (and should) clearly relate his groundbreaking work on src, which led to his election to the National Academy. His more recent work on anueploidy is significantly more obscure, but nonetheless deserves mention. There is no intent to link Duesberg to the Nazi regime in anything other than a purely temporal sense, but if even that link is considered somehow offensive, then I think we've reached a ridiculously excessive level of oversensitivity but would agree to its removal.

However, I don't see how you can write an article about someone famous for claiming HIV is harmless without saying that the virus does indeed cause AIDS. The review sources are substantially more definitive on HIV/AIDS than on climate change. The article should of course not be a WP:COATRACK to bash AIDS denialism, but at the same time the reader should not be left with an erroneous impression of the level of support or acceptance for Duesberg's claims. In light of the current fixation on real-life harm caused by Misplaced Pages articles, perhaps it would be reasonable to mention that the claims of Duesberg and other AIDS denialists are considered to have contributed to the avoidable deaths of approximately 330,000 HIV-positive men, women, and children in Africa to date (PMID 18931626). I think it would be irresponsible to fail to accurately note the degree to which those claims have been rejected. MastCell  17:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And indeed it is mentioned "The consequent failure of South Africa to provide antiretroviral drugs in a timely manner is thought to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths and HIV infections". Don't get me wrong, I have close African friends who have died of AIDS and I choose to spend my life working for a charity which is perhaps the big playest in helping AIDS orphans. But the failure to provide a proper discussion of who said what when still looks like a bit of a failure. e.g. "Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims have been rejected as incorrect and disproven by the scientific community" should really have a time reference "since been rejected..." and probably for the sake of ambiguity should say disproven and incorrect etc. --BozMo talk 18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should do a better job with timeline. Duesberg's claims were within the bounds of reasonable scientific thought when he first made them, in the mid-1980s. At that point it was fairly clear that HIV was the cause of AIDS, but there was at least reasonable doubt to discuss alternate ideas. The real issue is that despite an accumulating avalanche of confirmatory evidence since 1987, Duesberg (essentially uniquely among serious "dissident" scientists) has persisted in denying a role for HIV. The story is really that of someone who's held on to a once-dubious-but-defensible claim long past its obvious falsification, and I don't know whether the article makes that clear. I'm not picky about "rejected" vs. "falsified" vs. "disproven" vs. "incorrect"; I think "rejected" is best since nothing is ever definitely "disproven" in science, technically speaking... MastCell  21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

However, I don't see how you can write an article about someone famous for claiming HIV is harmless without saying that the virus does indeed cause AIDS. - the parallels with Singer do indeed seem to be striking. Not that I've read the article William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The main problem I see with the Duesberg biography is in the last section, describing the complaint to the University of California about the Medical Hypotheses paper. Based on having checked the citations, I think that section should be toned down / deemphasized a bit, which I will attempt to do if I work up the energy. I'd attribute the problem to recentism rather than malice. Duesberg openly discusses life under the Nazis in the cited Newsweek article. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 24 May 2010

• News and notes: New puzzle globe, feature for admins, Israel's "Misplaced Pages Bill", unsourced bios declining

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Saints

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Heh!

Want to see if you can start an Enforcement request whereby I am sanctioned for my third typo, spelling mistake, grammar correction or reformat, of any one session? I will help do the copy editing - and, yes, I believe that could be construed as a threat... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

L/Pg is obviously really exciting; but it wuold be nice if the MN request were not forgotten William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

Vsmith is not an uninvolved admin (although he appears to be an admin, he's not uninvolved under the ArbCom definition), wouldn't you agree? Please move this: ... I've asked him on his talk but he may not have seen it yet or whatever. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

He had moved the comment before I saw this by the way, so I haven't really thought about it. --BozMo talk 16:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What current Arbcomm definition? I am not aware that there is a currently universally accepted Arbcom definition of involvement with regard to CC articles. Until the definition is shown to me it appears that Lar is taking a few comments on various cases and spinning this to his prefered version. Polargeo (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the case discussion regarding you and Lar you would find an original Arbcomm adefinition, some support for widening it, some case law on individuals but not yet agreed revised wording. --BozMo talk 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 31 May 2010

• Photography: Making money with free photos

• News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Arbcom case

There is an arbcom case relating to sockpuppet investigations that you were involved in on CC enforcement. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence Polargeo (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)