User talk:A Quest For Knowledge: Difference between revisions

1) "Is edit warring" does not mean "made two reverts three days ago". 2) You think that someone's own website should be enough to denote someone as a scientist? An undergraduate degree with honors and no apparent other publications isn't really enough to call someone one. 3) How is this related to climate change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs)

NuclearWarfare, read the article. Nova is a climate change sceptic. That's why WMC is interested in it. It is related. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I declined to edit-war in return. This makes WMC the only editor to edit-war about this. Double-check the cited source. I believe that it was a secondary source. I forget how Joanne Nova is related to CC. Please keep in mind that I have no dog in this fight. CC isn't even a topic that interests me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was unclear. "How is this related to Cla68's post?" is what I had in mind.

And err, accept my apologies for the tone of the last post (point 2). I accidentally read the other website linked in the lead, Nova's personal webpage, and wondered why you would possibly use that to source such a claim. Still, why did you revert instead of discussing at Talk:Joanne_Nova#Scientist, which WMC and Marknutley had already done two weeks prior? NW (Talk) 00:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed before, although I forget which venue. I did bring the issue up and Mark Nutley was able to provide a reliable source which specifically described her as a geneticist. At that point, I was satisfied. I'm not sure what this content issue has to do with your and WMC's edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef blocked you for edit warring with an uninvolved admin who is also an arbcom clerk on a sanctions page that you are involved in. I will unblock you when you agree to stop edit warring in such situations. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, I didn't think of Nuclear Warefare's edit as an admin action, but an editor's action. If I did, I would never have reverted him in the first place.

In any case, I don't think that I edit-warred. I considered my edit to be the second of a

WP:BRD cycle and immediately proceeded to discuss the issue on NW's talkpage.[7][8][9]

How is a single edit considered-edit warring?

In any case, this block was completely unnecessary. As I said, I considered my edit to be the second of a BRD cycle; I never would have performed the edit a second time. Further, it's quite obvious from the diffs above that I had ample opportunity to perform the edit a second time, but choose to discuss the issue instead. Blocks are supposed to be preventative. There was nothing to prevent. Unless I'm missing something, can someone please overturn the block because:

• As far as I know, a single edit is not edit-warring.
• It was unnecessary because I never would have performed the edit a second time.
  

BTW, if I had done something wrong, why didn't anyone simply give me a warning or ask me to self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz, for what it's worth, I also didn't agree with NW's removal of AQFK's comments on that page. I understand that NW is learning the hard way about the difference between involved and uninvolved admins, but I think some of the decisions he has made lately with regard to the CC articles could have been better and AQFK shouldn't have to be the one to bear all the blame for that. Cla68 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it is on the sanctions page, in a topic where you are involved. You shouldn't be reverting people on that page period, or it is disruptive editing/edit warring. Clas68, that's fine, if NW is alleged involved, there are ways to deal with that which do not involve reverting on the sanctions page by the person making the allegation. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz: The reason you cited for my block was that I was that I was edit-warring. I had only performed one edit and was in the discuss phase of the BRD cycle. There was no reason to block me. If I was blocked for reverted an admin action, that makes more sense. But you could have simply informed me of my mistake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that if I unblock you, you will not revert administrator actions on project pages or else you will be indef blocked without opportunity for unblock? MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree not to revert admin actions on project pages. Like I said, I didn't even think of it that way. Had somebody just asked me to self-revert, I would have. But the "indef blocked without opportunity for unblock" seems unduly harsh for an honest mistake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per note above. MBisanz talk 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Request handled by: MBisanz talk Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Friendly tip from someone who has had their fair share of blocks: If you just say "I will not do something like this again." that will go over much better than arguing that the block was invalid in the unblock request, even if the block was invalid. Arguing against the validity of a block is best made after being unblocked at, for example,

I already did say that I will not do something like this again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you just didn't do it in your unblock request. Welcome back to the land of the unblocked!

talk) 22:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Help - it still says I'm blocked

Resolved

I was about to post something to one of the talk pages, but it says I'm still blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an uncleared auto-block. I think I got it. Try again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather post this on the science reference desk, but can't, so I'll ask here. I woke up this morning and found an injured (or sick?) bird outside my door. My two dogs tried to attack it but I stopped them. It tried to flap its wings and hobbled into a corner. This was about an hour ago and its still there. What should I do? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of life's great quandaries. I dunno...see if it will take a food offering (you could even force feed it if you're not adverse to handling it [use gloves]...dig up some worms which are always good) and give it some secure shelter while looking for any evidence of improvement. Doesn't sound good though and euthanasia is probably for the best. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[10].

talk) 16:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

An animal welfare group may be able to help you, depending upon your location. Once I saw an injured pigeon in New York City and called the ASPCA. They acted as if I was crazy. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JakeInJoisey. If the poor thing is seriously injured, the best you can do is to end its suffering. This is tough to do -- we live near a rural area and I've had to deal with such situations.

talk) 16:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Why assume the worst? Also, as I said, it depends on location. If AQFK is in Britain, where the attitude toward wildlife is more enlightened, there may be people able and willing to be of assistance. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., I would call the state Fish and Wildlife service. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, I was able to get a hold of a friend who's been a volunteer at an animal shelter. We wrapped in a blanket and took it to the Willowbrook Wildlife Center. They had me fill out a card which they will send back to let me know what happens with the bird. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that will bring good karma. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm late to this convo, but my answer would've been to topic ban it. That seems to be the answer to everything these days. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your reposted statement immediately from the PD talk page. If you need to refer to it, simply provide a diff to the earlier version.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. But why can't I repost it? It doesn't appear as if any of the ArbCom members read it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because if every party reposts lengthy rebuttals of FoFs; and then others respond to their rebuttal; and then still more riposte to the response to the rebuttal; in no time at all we'll be back to the unholy bloat and bickering that has plagued this case throughout.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can I post a question asking what behavior needs to be corrected? So far, no one has been able to answer this question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still adamant that there was nothing wrong with your "criminals" remark for a start.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have one more question. Is it OK to bring my statement to the attention of the other ArbCom members? Again, they don't appear to have read it, and no one's been able to explain what behavior needs to be corrected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can if you like but given the extraordinary amount of talk page stuff arbitrators have been receiving during this case, it might prove counterproductive.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger, what I said was that I did not violate BLP, which I still believe is correct. However, if you want to say that my comment was disruptive, I would agree. It obviously stirred up a lot of tension, which is why I regret the remark and have NEVER repeated it. Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Given the fact that I have NEVER repeated this remark, what outstanding behavior needs to be corrected? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've argued tooth and nail over a lengthy period to justify it; despite the fact that the word never appeared in any source and despite the fact that BLP does apply to sub-sets of people. As for the bigger picture, as you freely admit, your remark was disruptive and stirred up a lot of tension (which is what battleground editing is about). Both ArbCom and, from various comments made by various uninvolved editors, the community at large are heartily fed up with the factional fighting at Climate change, which is spilling out into other areas and causing widespread unhappiness. I repeat, by your own admission, you are part of that. The current strategy is to take people who participated in the battleground out of the equation, you are one of these people, and the remedy is therefore entirely preventative.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't fought tooth and nail over it, I've simply explained the difference between an identifiable living person and an organization of thousands of differnt people. If you honestly think that I violated BLP, then I would like to take this issue to the entire community abd bring it to BLP:NB, and if consensus is that BLP applies to situations where no identifiable living person is indicated, then I will never repeat the offense. Does that seem fair to you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're evading the issue here. You have made over 1400 posts to the Climate Research Unit email controversy talk page: to my mind, this is clear and compelling evidence of someone who is profoundly invested in the subject. You still do not accept that the remark was inappropriate, instead insisting that it was intended to refer to all 2,400 employees of the University of East Anglia. (Though I'm not at all sure why you think it's appropriate to brand an entire organisation as "criminal" on one of the world's most visited websites.)  Roger Davies ^talk 07:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not evading the issue. By your own admission, I've made over over 1400 posts to the Climate Research Unit email controversy talk page and you're focusing on a single, isolated comment which was never repeated. Can you please answer the following simple question: What behavior are you attempting to correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the primary purpose of this remedy is to repair the topic. Second, a period of disengagement would probably do you a world of good and, after the dust has settled, help you see things with frssh eyes. Many editors, after many months of battling become horribly involved, and this is a huge part of the overall problem here.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how long ago the above discussion took place, but I've got a few minutes between moving heavy furniture and some other stuff, so I'll add my two cents (I'd prefer to do it on the case talk page). I think this is a relatively calm, clear analysis about the aggravating and mitigating factors in AQFK's "criminals" comment (I'd thought about this before, and it only takes minutes to type): (1) Mitigating factor: According to press reports, no prosecution could take place because of a "statute of limitations"-like element in British law; (2) Aggravating factor: It was not established that a crime took place (although this would have been prosecuted in a court where, I think, less-serious crimes are prosecuted); if we don't know that a crime took place, however strongly we suspect it, we don't know for sure that there was one or more criminals; (3) Mitigating factor: At least one of Phil Jones' now-public emails looks (very, very strongly) like he was planning on violating the law, and we know people who filed FOI requests were not given certain information -- we're entitled to be highly suspicious; (4) Mitigating: AQFK didn't name any particular names; (5) Aggravating: We know his comment seemed to refer to the scientists who wrote the e-mails; (6) Aggravating: I think AQFK would have known by that point that William M. Connolley was associated with Michael E. Mann (one of the scientists who wrote and received the emails) on the Real Climate group blog, so indicating that the small group of CRU-related scientists included "criminals" would increase the battlefield atmosphere, apart from regular WP:BLP concerns -- it's very hard not to take offense at implications that your associate might be a criminal. (7) Mitigating: AQFK is entitled to be outraged at the UK's damn crazy six-month provision in its FOI law. There's no two ways around it: That law is a ass. And it's pretty damn clear that if some criminal somewhere did violate that law, the six month window makes it much, much easier for that hypothetical criminal to get away with it under the damn-foolish technicality. Now, note that this was one of the things that AQFK was trying to express in his posting, although (aggravating factor) the way he wrote it, he said more. How certain can the rest of us be that AQFK wasn't simply being sloppy in trying to make a point about the craziness of the UK's FOI law?

All of the aggravating factors above don't amount to a BLP-violating statement as bad as someone simply calling Jones or Mann a "criminal" who got off, but the threshold of course should be lower than that, and there is definitely a battleground-inflaming element to AQFK's statement, but it isn't directly naming anyone and I think that's got to make it a much lesser BLP offense. When you apply the mitigating factors above, and add to it the fact that this situation is a bit complicated by #7 above. We type fast, some of us, and hit the "save page" button too quickly sometimes, so these discussions and even edit summaries are a bit like casual conversations. In casual conversations we can stray into BLP violations without meaning to do so. Apologies and promises not to do it again are usually the best resolutions, aren't they? Unless there are factors I'm unaware of (and I don't have time to look into the circumstances or previous discussions about this), doesn't it seem reasonable for AQFK to admit that he put a toe over the line, and isn't it reasonable not to consider this a very serious violation, only worthy of a sanction if it's part of a much larger series of battleground-inflaming edits? Is a sanction here the best way to stop the behavior from happening in the future? It's very possible I'm missing something about the context of the edit, but I hope this is helpful. I've said it before: I don't see how the evidence against AQFK amounts to him being one of the worst editors in the CC area. Sanctioning him doesn't look like the calm, cool thing to do. Now I've got to load the car for my third trip to the dump this week. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• A
  discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement
  .
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or
  request deletion
  of them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey [11]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen [12]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,