Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:49, 27 September 2010

Jumping the gun?

I see that you voted to support the FoF against me. Are you at least going to give me a chance to explain myself before making up you mind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal to sign by supporting the FoFs that one drafts. In any case, it was based on the extensive discussions which have already place and in which you have participated.  Roger Davies 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My participation was minimal. The evidence presented against me is so poor, I honestly didn't anyone would take it seriously. But I guess I'll have to issue an explanation. I hope that you will keep an open mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is just an FYI. I am planning on posting a full response to the FoF. It's mostly typed up, but I'm trying to understand the two BLP allegations. Hopefully, it will be up there in a day or two. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is another FYI. I will be helping my brother move Saturday during the day and then will attend the Naperville Independent Film Festival at night. I probably won't have much time to edit tomorrow. I hope to post my official statement to the proposed FoF about me on Sunday. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've posted my response. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste error?

Roger Davies: Is the last diff in the "incivil or promoted a battleground mentality" a copy and paste error? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

More QVC vandalism

Hi again,

The IP address 207.140.171.127 has been repeatedly removing the advert tag from the QVC page again. According to his talk page the IP is registered to QVC and had also removed the tag several times before. I think a more long term solution needs to be put in place to stop these edits. Deftera (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Deftera:

I COI-templated the IP's page a couple of days ago. Since then, all seems quiet on the western front, though it may kick up again during office hours Monday. I have the article on my watchlist but do let me know if this restarts.  Roger Davies 05:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Deftera 20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies 19:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tks for the msg. I wasn't aware. The political poster I added was a humourous ref to the A-class reviews. I believe I must have been disqualifid :P YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, YM: it went right over my head. Duh, 06:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TruckCard

Hello Roger,

Per Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Explanation_of_blocks

"The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested."

I would like to see the five blocks recorded in the block log of User:TruckCard reviewed and to see for every one:

1. the action(s) of User:TruckCard (reviewable evidence)
2. the invoked WP policy
3. how that policy justified the block. (reasonable judgment)

Should be easy as it seems it all stems from a limited set of activities performed within less than 48 hours and all related to National identity cards.

User:TruckCard 79.193.155.128 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check your email.  Roger Davies 05:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. The email contained only an /opinion/. There was not any diff of what action I have done that merited invoking which WP policy. The explanations of the blocks and the explanations of the declines fail to meet the requirements set forth in Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Explanation_of_blocks. User:TruckCard 79.193.135.8 (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the arbitrator dealing with this and I have my hands full with other things at the moment. Best is to respond to the email by email and stop using IP addresses to evade your block.  Roger Davies 21:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not the arbitrator dealing with this" - who then is? I shall not use IP addresses? But this is the only way to contribute, except for creating a new account. Do you want me to create a new account? Isn't that ruled out by WP:SOCK? Or do you mean the indef block was against WP policies, so I am entitled to create a new account? I responded to the email, with CC to arbcom-l but still got no delivery notification. If you have no time, why don't you appoint the four blocking admins to give for each block 1) /reviewable evidence/ 2) invoked WP policy 3) how that policy justified the block. (reasonable judgment)? User:TruckCard 79.193.151.189 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Broadly, you have utterly ignored consensus and continued to push a point of view. You first did this in category names for transport -v- transportation and then again with residents' cards.

You first block was as the result of a community discussion. You dove straight back into edit-warring as soon as the block expired and then appealed it here. That, combined with the socking report, led to an indefinite community ban. Your case has been extensively reviewed by individual admins and by the community. Their conclusions are unanimous. There are no grounds for ArbCom to intervene. Any further posts here from you will be summarily reverted.  Roger Davies 08:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again! and request for help

Hi, Roger! :)

I sent you an e-mail yesterday asking for your help, and I just wanted to alert you to it, in case you don't check that e-mail address very often. Hoping all's well with you, Willow (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know that I sent you an e-mail, in case it goes awry. By the way, bon courage! I see how swamped you are here, and I'm grateful for the time you take out to help me. :) Willow (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

CC case

Please do let me know if you are considering entering a Finding of Fact about me. I didn't think that making a fuller statement would be necessary, but I feel that I should if you are thinking about doing so. Thank you, NW (Talk) 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not.  Roger Davies 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

CC, Blog remedy

Roger, the wording of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Use_of_blogs currently singles out blogs. In our policies and guidelines, blogs are listed as one type of self-published source, all of which should be treated the same:

• "self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets" (WP:V),
• "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." (WP:RS)
• "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person" (WP:RS)

Please consider whether it would not be better to say "blogs and other self-published sources", to reduce the likelihood of arguments later on whether a particular SPS is a "blog" or not, and to bring the remedy wording in line with policy. --JN466 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for sending out the election notice, I appreciate it very much. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

• From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

• News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

• In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Misplaced Pages hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Misplaced Pages

• WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

• Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

I'm commenting here - since the signal to noice level is rather high

On the PD page. You state in your finding that and, more recently, has continued to interpret sourcing and BLP policy selectively.. That demands (imho) an explanation, especially since i've just gone through all of your links, and comparing each and every one of them with my checklist here - it is everything but selective.

Now if you in the finding had said that i interpreted policy wrong - then it would have been different, perhaps i have. Clarification of interpretation of policy and clearer guidelines in the grey areas (no matter who it benefitted) was my goal for the ArbCom case - but unfortunately it was relayed to me rather early that such a goal was incompatible with how ArbCom works.

Could you clarify? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Another note: i'm not contesting that there is a finding against me, just that if you do so, that you actually get it right. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the noise level is high. Part of the main problem I'm seeing is that you exclude blogs/sps as sources in some contexts but include them in others. Elsewhere, you say it's okay to include blogs/sps about someone's work, within a BLP, but not about them. Some of these calls have been very odd indeed and have contributed to the general mayhem. I'll be tweaking one of the principle to restate the basics on BLP/SPS shortly.  Roger Davies 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My view is simple: Blogs about the person (never). Blogs not about the person fx. about published works (only if passes WP:SPS). Person's own blog/sps (Ok), except when unduly self-serving. And if you check the links, then you will find that every one of the links are explained by those 3 sentences. Thus i still object to the "selective" claim. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please: If you cannot substantiate the "selective" part - then you should remove it or amend it. I have pointed out that these aren't "selective", i've even done so with a specific description in terms of policy/interpretation of policy that has been followed by me, rigorously (or as rigorously as is humanly possible). These aren't new, i've "lived" by these for years, if the interpretation of policy is incorrect, then so be it - but "selective" it ain't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to "idiosyncratically" :)  Roger Davies 19:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that a violation of policy, is it battlefield conduct, or what? (btw. i do not believe that i'm the only one holding to these simple rules) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The idiosyncratic interpretation of policy in this edit resulted in a BLP violation (Real Climate is, in fact, prohibited by WP:BLP and the last sentence of WP:SPS, since "dishonest" can't be a criticism of Singer's work without being a criticism of Singer ). But that's my interpretation. Roger has that diff listed under edit warring. Compare with these first two diffs from the "idiosyncratic" list in the Fof, where a blog is used to source a running joke about Al Gore. Somehow the joke, which no one considers descriptive of the actual Al Gore, is a BLP vio when sourced to a political magazine's opinion blog (because the blog is "unreliable" since the blogger is not an expert ), but "dishonest" isn't meant to characterize Singer. "Idiosyncratic" is one way of describing KDP's actions, but it boils down to violating WP:BLP or using wild interpretations of it in order to use the policy as a tool in a POV fight. Hope this helps. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it incredible how certain you are of your interpretation of BLP, considering that the last time this was up on t:BLP, opinion was very much diverse on the subject. And that in the very similar situation, opinion was just as diverse. I'm certainly not the only one having this view, or views very similar to this - and asserting differently is strange. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Another diverse one from WT:BLP (which btw. addresses this particular context Realclimate in Singer's article). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to address this: A blog talking about Gore - is talking about the person (without any questions). Thus the similarities stop. Blogs and situations are not created equal - there is always context. We can never get information about living persons from blogs, that is and has always (at least for as long as i can remember back) been my opinion - and also one that is non-ambiguous in policy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a quote from the page you were linking to on the Fred Singer article (I'm having trouble following the link, but this is cut and pasted from an earlier discussion): S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries (financed by the notorious “Heartland Institute” we’ve commented on previously) served up a similarly dishonest ‘assessment’ of the science of climate change earlier this year I don't think we need to care how expert the authors of that may be on climate science. It's a partisan attack on a group blog. Therefore it's a clear BLP violation. Whether or not "dishonest" grammatically modifies "assessment", rhetorically and for all practical purposes it modifies "Fred Singer", the lead author of the document. Singer is clearly being called dishonest, just as I would be calling someone dishonest if I said, "I must criticize your statement: It is a lie." Yet you have repeatedly argued against this commonsense conclusion. You are pretty consistent in arguing abstract policy. You are inconsistent in applying policy to particular situations. The example I've just noted is a very loose, while the example of "The Al Gore Effect" is extremely "tight", where you see a BLP violation where none exists -- and where certainly no harm to Al Gore exists. The National Review blogger, a professional opinion journalist, said Al Gore said a certain thing at a certain time, then a certain weather event happened. The blogger repeated a joke about that kind of thing happening after Gore says the kind of thing he said. Any "expertise" needed to relay the facts is an "expertise" the writer is fully qualified to publish in a magazine blog (not an independent blog where he would be self publishing -- that is, his editors have enough supervision over his blog to ensure that a correction will be published whether or not it embarasses the writer). That source isn't even in the strict sense saying something actually negative about the BLP subject Al Gore, since everyone knows the purpose of the statement is to joke, not to reveal a single fact about Gore. Even though I saved that article at AfD by rewriting it, I have nothing to do with it any more (except for one talk-page edit today at the request of another editor) because I'm tired of arguing about such an insignificant topic. In that sense, your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior was quite effective (not that it was you in particular that drove me off). Sorry to go on at length here, but I think Roger Davies' proposed finding is a little unusual and the problem with your conduct should be explained as clearly as possible. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry John - but i'm going to ignore you here. You seem to think that repeated assertions equals truth, which i do not. I can't see our discussion getting anywhere, and i'm not willing to rewind-and-replay the same arguments. We disagree - and apparently vehemently. I have to say one thing though, which is an observation that i've drawn from the topic area, the CC board and the Arb process - there are some people, editing in this area, who are unwilling to let go of a gripe they once had with an edit (and editor/editors), and they then accumulate, and repeat, that gripe every time they can. This in my opinion is not healthy, nor good for any editing environment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about your behavior, Kim. At times, irritated, but mostly just concerned. Since the behavior has continued and shows every sign of continuing further, I remain concerned. This ArbCom case is the best place to present those concerns. Believe it or not, it isn't even personal, and if you don't mind my complimenting you, I've found your participation always civil and knowledgable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Does Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History fall under the CC umbrella? I now have a copy of the book and was going to expand upon the article once i had received it. The book itself is about organic chemistry and does not really impact upon the CC articles, thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If the article avoids rehashing CC controversies, it's probably not within scope. But if anyone starts using it as a backdoor for CC POV-pushing, it will fall within scope (that's the practical interpretation of "broadly construed" usually means.) It's worth remembering that ArbCom retains jurisdiction on all its cases.  Roger Davies 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, rest assured i shall not be adding any CC related content to the article mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just noting that there are a couple of diffs in the CC finding about me for editing this non-CC article. Yes, I know Arb has "jurisdiction" to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants, but still thought it was worth noting that my editing on a non-CC article is being used to support a "battleground" finding within the CC topic area. Minor4th 00:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change Proposal Renumberings

Hi Roger. On the Climate Change proposed decision, F13 and F13.1 have comments referring to the old numbers F18 and F18.1. Paul August ☎ 22:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. Fixed. (I hope the numbering didn't break your stats too badly.)  Roger Davies 05:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. such considerations are secondary. Paul August ☎ 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review alternate proposed FoF re: WMC . Thanks. Minor4th 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a notice

Hi, first thank you for letting me know about the new difs you had added regarding my question at the CC case on the PD talk page. I'm about done commenting I think since the latest round is just getting ridiculous in my opinion. I think I need guidance about whether I should leave or stay since I need to know if my comments/questions are useful or if they add to the problems going on now. I have to say that the last thread there about fringe vs science vs ... to me shows who is advocating, battling etc. and to me it's not the scientist. This is the conclusion I am about locked onto by what I've seen going on at multiple location like the PD talk page, the CC sanction board and multiple editors talk pages. I think I am getting disgusted by it all so I can imagine how the editors who have been dealing with everything for so long are feeling. I would also like to bring to your attentions and to the rest of the arbitrators if you would care to pass it along the new section about the FoF on Tony Sideaway. I think attentions should be taken to this section too. Finally I want to bring to your attentions a block for a month to marknutley from Vsmith that got overturned by another administrator about copyright violations which MN has been blocked in the past for. The administrator who overturned it said that Vsmith was an involved administrator though I did not see any conversations on this administrators talk page here about the block being overturned so I let them know. If you go to Marknutley's talk page you will see attacks going on unanswered or acted upon from other editors. I don't know what's going on anymore, the behaviors are just plain strange at this point esp. with a case linger in PD discussions. Anyways, you said if I had any concerns to bring it to your talk page instead of the PD talk page because of the noise so here I am. I'm not sure if my input is wanted anymore so if it's not please let me know. As I said above I'd like some guidance about whether I am hindering things. I am an outsider in this one who has tried to stay neutral and check out what is said prior to commenting. It is difficult as an outsider to understand a lot of the attitudes going on. The one section where I and Slatersteven are discussing thing we took it to my talk page and I think we worked it out, but it was just a case of not understanding what I said which you can read for yourself. Thanks in advance, sorry for taking up your time during this busy time for you, --CrohnieGal 00:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC) PS: it's late for me personally and I proofed this to death but please still let me know if there are errors, again thank you.

On the subject of the proposed finding concerning my conduct, I don't find any of the presented evidence credible so I'm not taking it seriously, but do please let me know if you think there is cause for concern. --TS 09:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey proposed remedy

I have very few edits in the topic of climate change. The only article to which I have made anything like a significant contribution is Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which concerns a matter of data theft and media exploitation. With this in mind, I was wondering if you could tell me why you have written a proposed remedy that indefinitely (and broadly) bans me from contributing in a topic with which I have virtually no footprint. I am also deeply concerned the issues I raised about the distorted, misleading FoF against me have been ignored, and that the Committee has chosen to accept it without proper analysis. I have opened a more generic discussion about proposed individual remedies on the corresponding talk page if you prefer to respond more broadly. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also worth considering is that it appears that I alone have adhered to my pledge not to participate in the climate change topic until the end of the ArbCom case. This show of good faith is surely a signal of my general non-involvement in the topic from which you have apparently voted to ban me. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you have not responded to my concerns (or even acknowledged them, for that matter). Is there any point in an editor defending oneself? It has become apparent that efforts to do so are ignored by the Arbitration Committee, which seems as odds with ArbCom's stated function. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) First, I offer my sincere apologies for not replying directly to you earlier. Your contributions, I'm afraid, are symptomic of the general malaise within the topic and while you are by no means the worst offender you have certainly contributed to the problems. I am not at all convinced that similar problems will not arise in the future within this topic. The topic ban therefore should not be seen as punitive but as one of a series of measures designed to wrest the topic out of the hands of those participating and back into the hands of the community, so that community norms might prevail.  Roger Davies 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are basically saying that you are lumping me in with everyone else, yet it is clear I have had very little impact in the climate change topic as a whole. What really frustrates me is that I have had very little interaction with the topic at all in the last few months, rendering any "problems" as stale. My only recent contributions have been to the case page in an effort to defend myself, efforts that have now been recast as personal attacks. I understand that it is easier for Misplaced Pages to "reclaim" the topic by handing out a fistful of topic bans, but for minor offenders like me this is grossly unfair. Topic bans should be reserved for those who engage in edit warring and POINTy edits that directly disrupt articles, not the poor saps like me who are trying to defend the integrity of the project from those seeking to promote an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect, the great difficulty here is that everyone in the topic sincerely "believes they are trying to defend the integrity of the project from those seeking to promote an agenda". That, combined with a widespread inability to completely disengage, is what has got the topic into the unholy mess it is today.  Roger Davies 12:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand your point of view, but the point I made above is that I had disengaged several months ago. Only the sudden appearance of an FoF filed against me brought me back to the topic (and only to the case page). I continue to have zero interest in climate change - it was specifically the article related to the data theft at the University of East Anglia that I was interested in. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. How would you feel about formalising your disengagement with a FoF that says broadly that you've now disengaged and will not, with immediate effect, edit any CC-related articles and their talk pages; any related BLPs and their talk pages; or participate in any CC related process on-wiki? This would go hand in hand with a remedy noting a voluntary but binding retirement from the topic.  Roger Davies 13:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to do as you suggest with one small amendment: I often use Twinkle to revert vandalism, copyvios and similar transgressions by monitoring RecentChanges. I do this without concern for topics or article type, so it would be awkward to have to check to make sure I wasn't doing it in a CC-related topic. I would also need a little bit of guidance with respect to how broadly this would apply, since I am quite active editing politics-related articles (including BLPs of politicians) - some of which may include sections related to climate change. Wording could be constructed, for example, that allowed me freedom in such BLPs as long as my contributions did not impact sections which related to climate change? Perhaps something a bit like this:

Scjessey voluntarily withdraws from the topic of Climate Change, with the exception of cleanup-style edits and cases of obvious vandalism. Furthermore, Scjessey voluntarily agrees not to edit any CC-related section of articles not directly related to Climate Change, or any BLPs where the living person is chiefly notable for their prominence in the topic of Climate Change.

It's a bit clumsy, but I think you will probably see what I am getting at. No doubt you could come up with a wording more elegant than I. Is this the sort of thing you are looking for? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Lar FoF

Roger, the first and fifth diffs in the finding of fact "Lar's comments, actions, and mindset" are duplicates of each other. --JN466 14:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

De-duplicated. Thanks!  Roger Davies 15:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure, and thanks for taking the SPS thing on board. --JN466 00:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Like your idea...

Per your arbitrator comment here...could you follow through and delete User:SevenOfDiamonds/Arbcom...I had my corresponding collating page deleted here...also I found an old page I had forgotten about regarding another editor that needs deletionhere...thanks.--MONGO 14:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, as SevenOfDiamonds is unlikely to request deletion themself.  Roger Davies 15:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Good observation and thank you.--MONGO 15:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not your intention but

Hi, I noticed that you opposed several topic bans, in the hope of passing your new proposed version of topic banning, which incidently I do think is a good idea. I don't think it was your intention, but by opposing the original topic bans you may very well cause a split vote between arbcom members with neither topic ban passing for some individuals. Would it not have been better to vote, like "first choice", "second choice"? Just saying incase you hadn't thought of the possibilities of a split vote and its possible effects on the final decision.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of your concerns. These are bridges that can be crossed as and when necessary: votes can after all be changed. I have every confidence that the Committee will collectively be able to resolve this one way or another.  Roger Davies 11:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

topic ban

I'm not sure where this comes from but there is no history of problematic editing on CC articles by myself. Therefore I would consider a topic ban to be a ridiculous slap in the face and I would never edit Misplaced Pages again. Thanks for your time though. Polargeo (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree. Most of the difs of Polargeo are stale, I believe they end at 3/10. The others are from the PD talk page where he is trying to defend himself from John Barber and others. He does get a little hot under the collar but I think under the circumstances with the way behavior has been on the PD talk page, some leniency is needed and maybe just a warning is necessary instead of lumping him in with the rest. I am having a problem with editors being lumped together when like Polargeo and others who have civility and edit warring compared to those who have done egregious things like misrepresenting sources or copyright or plagerism problems. I think there should be a difference in the way these are handled for obvious reasons. Just my humble opinion, --CrohnieGal 12:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There is a clear history here of personalising the conflict and, as you say, getting a little hot under the collar. There is no acknowledgement that I've seen that this editor now believes their remarks were inappropriate and there is no indication that they will cease making them. This is incompatible with the more collegiate atmosphere we aim to try to restore.  Roger Davies 13:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, fair enough. I didn't see the conversation above between the two of you. --CrohnieGal 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change proposed decision collapse

Would you take a look at that last edit you made on the page? It's hard for me to check at the moment but before I left the house it looked as if the collapse extended right to the bottom of the page including several active discussions. Tasty monster (=TS ) 07:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

I see you are putting recused for items about Cla68, how does the count work with you recusing from this? This is more for me to learn about things that arbcom does than a question for the PD talk page that would possibly cause problems that I would love to avoid. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 12:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It brings the majority down from five to four to pass. There's a table at the top of the /PD page that explains the maths.  Roger Davies 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that but I wasn't sure if your saying recuse made any difference to that chart. Now I see it doesn't. I've learned something more with this case. This case has been a big learning experience for me so whatever happens at least you will know someone learned something with it. :) Thanks again for your quick response to my question. --CrohnieGal 13:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)