User talk:Captain Occam/Archive 7

Apologies

I didn't notice the template on the Beebe article. Sorry about editing it. Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to apologize for; it's fine with me if you want to edit the article. Just because I'm in the process of revising it doesn't mean I don't welcome contributions from other editors, and for me to have that attitude would be WP:OWNERSHIP. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That template is usually a means of saying "I'm in the middle of a long and complicated edit, don't screw this up by editing the page" - Guettarda (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leg wings

Hey, it's not a bad idea to have something on this but I'm not sure there would be enough material on this for a separate article. Maybe you should try adding it as a subsection in the main wing article (or maybe more appropriately Bird flight) and if its gets to be too much, spin it off from there. Also I'm unaware of anyone proposing that the "hind wings" of Anchiornis actually had any aerodynamic function (they're certainly much smaller than in Microraptor, and the foot feathers of Pedopenna are downright tiny compared to the rest of the leg), so I'm not sure how much verifiable mileage you'll be able to get out of those, other than the fact that they may be homologous with the obviously aerodynamic structures on Microraptor. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[1] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing posts from other users' talk pages

You removed an edit I made on User talk:Jimbo Wales. I wonder whether you could please avoid doing so in future, even if you disagree with the views expressed? Jimbo can remove any user's comments from his talk page if he wishes; he may in fact do so with what I wrote, even with a disparaging edit summary, and that does not particularly bother me. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for amendment 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—

Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much

.

Thanks, I’m glad someone appreciates the work I’m putting into this article.

I wonder if anyone will eventually appreciate the work I do enough to award me a barnstar. Who gets them and who doesn’t seems like it’s as much a matter of popularity as the quality of one’s work. If my saying this comes off as asking for one from you, though, please don’t take it that way: I definitely don’t think I deserve one yet, and I don’t think I’ll feel like I do until after I’ve finished rewriting the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dave"

Hey! The fact is I'm not sure many paleontologists give it much thought. It's very ingrained in most people's minds as Sinornithosaurus sp. or cf. Sinornithosaurus because of the first Ji papers referring to it as such. However as far as I'm aware all phylogenetic analyses which include it as a separate OTU find it closer to, usually sister to, Microraptor. Unless I missed something. Running a quick search on my own paper collection I also found the description of the second Anchiornis specimen also recovers it as the sister taxon of Microraptor, as does the Tianyuraptor and Epidexipteryx descriptions. Mickey Mortimer also recoveries the same position in the Theropod Database phylogeny. Several other recent papers like Therion & Henderson 2007 simply treat it as dromaeosauridae indet. and no longer refer to it as cf. Sinornithosaurus. So despite the inertia helped along by the decision not to name it (hence Sinornithosaurus+qualifier becoming the de facto name), it seems very unlikely to be Sinornithosaurus and I can't find any instances of anybody supporting that idea with actual data, and not just referencing the similarities noted in the initial description. MMartyniuk (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bathysphere article

Hi! Thanks so much for your note about Dr. Beebe and the bathysphere. I do appreciate you asking me about your plans, but really there is no need at all - you are doing a magnificent job and I am thrilled with all you have been doing. I think your idea to get the bathysphere article up to scratch before completing the Beebe article makes good sense, but it might be worthwhile popping a brief note explaining what you are doing on the Beebe Talk Page. BTW, is there any chance you could add that wonderful early photo (File:BeebeGuiana.png) of Dr. Beebe with his collecting net, sun umbrella, etc. into the article soon - maybe before you do the bathysphere one? It is just such a wonderful image! I think it will make the article really interesting to many who come upon the page. Cheers, and thanks for all your fine work - I am so happy someone has taken it up properly. John Hill (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Captain Occam. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 14:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

A. E. (Ted) Hill

Hi again! Thanks for your note. I am pleased to hear you plan to do more on the Beebe article and have ordered David Snow's book (yes, it has some interesting details about Beebe - especially about his love of Winnie the Pooh - I'll leave it at that, as I don't want to spoil the story for you). I got my copy from England too - but it only took a week or ten days to get way out here in the wilds of northern Queensland - so you shouldn't have a very long wait.

A. E. (Ted) Hill was my father - his full name was Alfred Edward Hill - but all his friends and family referred to him as "Ted". I don't think it matters much how he is referred to but he preferred A. E. (Ted) Hill - he didn't like the Alfred particularly - probably because it was his father's first name too. Please excuse me if I ramble on a bit about him - I just hope it doesn't sound too much like boasting but I should tell you a bit about him, as he was a remarkable man in his own right and it may help you get a bit of the ambience of the "crowd" Beebe gathered around him in Simla, Trinidad. When Dad was young he designed, built and flew a new kind of gyrocopter and several gliders and founded the first "Montreal Light Airplane Club," which was active for some years. He wanted to go to university and become an aeronautical engineer but my grandfather refused to help him unless he did something "useful" like medicine or law - so he did medicine and determined he would excel at it.

He went to McGill (Canada's premier medical school) and took degrees in medicine and surgery before WWII broke out, when he joined the airforce and did a degree in aviation medicine. He was bitterly dissapointed when he discovered that he would not be allowed to fly because he was a doctor and they were in such short supply. He was stationed in Newfoundland for most of the war, flying medical missions to rescue sailors from the huge merchant convoy fleets that were sent regularly from Halifax to England bringing war supplies to the beleaguered British (often carrying material from the US as well - even before it got into the war). The Germans torpedoed many of these ships and the losses were huge. His memories of the war were dominated by freezing and spend countless boring hours by himself in the back of unheated aircraft flying back and forth for hours over the North Atlantic and never being allowed to touch the controls of a plane. He hated the cold and determined that, after the war, he would move to the tropics. To this end he took a degree in tropical medicine and was also given a scholarship to do a degree in internal medicine as well, becoming a Fellow of the Royal Canadian Society of Physicians. And then he moved to Trinidad and set up in private practice.

He was the only doctor on the island who had a degree in tropical medicine (as well as the only internist), so he soon became an advisor to the Health Department, as well as to the large American navy base there and began to collaborate very closely with Dr. Wilbur Downs and others at the Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory as well as doing some ground-breaking research of his own (he had a small laboratory of his own attached to his office where he performed various medical tests that were otherwise unavailable in Trinidad, as well as his own research). There was quite a crowd of scientists at both Dr. Beebe's establishment and the Virus Laboratory who not only supported each other on various projects - but also used to socialise together. On weekends I remember going out many times on archaeological digs with a group of them at sites which were being destroyed by erosion (Carib beach middens) or by building developments, as well as looking for rare orchids, birdwatching, and visiting caves and mud volcanoes. Dr. Beebe and Dad became close friends and used to spend hours chatting together about everything under the sun. They were both atheists and loved sharing the odd joke about religion. So, it was only natural that he became Will Beebe's doctor. When Dr. Beebe became very sick with his swollen mouth ("my mango mouth") and (I think - if I remember correctly) heart problems, our whole family often went up from Port of Spain to Simla for the weekend. We would usually stay at Asa Wright's home. Dad would attend to Will and we would all have a "holiday" together. It was as a result of these visits and my own interest that I began assisting Will Beebe and other scientists there, and later on, at the Virus Laboratory where I worked my school holidays for many years from age 9 onwards until I was 20. Sorry to be so long-winded - but I thought this all might be of some interest to you. Thanks again for your major improvements to the Beebe article - you are doing him proud! Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the information. I’d suspected for a while that you were Dr. Hill’s son, but it’s still very interesting to know so much more about him. You probably know that we can’t include most of this in the article, though—Robert Welker’s book only devotes a couple of pages to your father, so unless there’s another reliable source that talks about him in this context, anything else we mention about him in the article would be unsourced.

I’d also been wondering whether you knew William Beebe while he was alive, and now I see the answer is that you did. Is there anything else you can tell me about what he was like in person? Obviously personal memories that haven’t been published anywhere can’t go in the article either, but I find Beebe fascinating in general, and I’d love to hear some of what you can remember about him. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Glad you enjoyed the reminiscences. Yes, I am well aware that they can't be used in a WP article - but that's fine. Also, although I think the world of my father, and he did conduct some original research, I don't think he was probably "notable" enough to deserve a seperate article in WP.

About Dr. Beebe: when I first met him he would have been in his late 70s and I was just a young boy - so my memories of him are those of a child, albeit one who spent some time with him and was fortunate enough to have him as a mentor. He was a great teacher and, when I first knew him he was still fit enough to take long walks in the bush and even to climb nearby trees so he could see into nests on adjoining trees. He was always very patient with me and taught much of what I know about bushcraft, scientific observation and recording, proposing hypotheses and then checking them, etc., etc., etc. He was always full of infectious wonder and enthusiasm and his deep love of nature certainly brushed off on me as well many other people. He was a great raconteur and was (I was told) always a favourite with the ladies. He believed deeply in meticulous observations and constant rechecking and was particularly upset when people made observations about animals in human terms (though he loved Walt Disney's and A.A. Milne's creations). He also had an impish sense of humour and when just the two of us were out in the forest he would often tell me a joke with a wonderful twinkle in his eye. I always enjoyed his company and don't remember a single cross word. He was endlessly patient with me while explaining some scientific titbit of information and would often surreptitiously check the next time I visited to see if I had remembered and understood the point he had made. I always looked to him as an exceptional person, a real living genius and a source of great inspiration but also as a true friend, always easy to be with, and one of the few adults I felt I could confide in and trust. He was truly a great man - yet never snobbish or too busy to share some new discovery and the wonder that went with it to anyone who might be interested. As he got older and frailer he spent a lot of time on his verandah with some huge binoculars (which he had had specially made for him - "the biggest binoculars in the world!") on a heavy-duty tripod, checking on nesting birds and watching entrances to animals' shelters - often right across, on the other side of the valley from his verandah. I also got to visit him once at the Bronx Zoo in New York where he had a permanent office. He had two or three Red Howler monkeys playing with him, jumping on his back, etc. I remember him talking fondly of his "brothers." Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me all of this. When I admire a person it’s always a unique experience to talk to someone who’s known them, and you’re the only person I’ve encountered for whom this is true in William Beebe’s case.

My own history with William Beebe is not nearly as interesting, I’m afraid, since when he died I wasn’t even born yet. I first learned about Beebe in 2003. I’ve always been interested in evolution, especially bird evolution, and the first I heard about him was that his Tetrapteryx hypothesis had been confirmed by the discovery of Microraptor gui. At first I didn’t know much about him beyond that, but I was intrigued by the brief references that articles about Tetrapteryx and Microraptor made to some of his other accomplishments—things like referring to him as an “ornithologist and deep-sea explorer”, or mentioning his pheasant expedition. Most famous paleontologists have only one or two major ideas or discoveries that they’re known for, but I got the impression that Tetratperyx was only the tip of the iceberg in Beebe’s case, and I was curious to know what else he’d accomplished. As I learned more about him, I was amazed by how little-known he is in modern times, considering the amount that he contributed to multiple areas of biology. I think he deserves a lot more recognition than he gets, and expanding Wikipedia’s article about him is one way I’m hoping to help remedy that.

For around ten years on and off I’ve been writing poetry about paleontology topics, and a few months ago I decided I should write a poem about William Beebe. It’s here, if you’re interested in reading it. It’s not often that one of my poems is read by someone who has the degree of familiarity with the subject matter that you have about Beebe, so I would definitely enjoy hearing what you think of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a fabulous poem - thanks for that! It is great to see that someone still thinks of Dr. Beebe and his many accomplishments. He was so well-known and admired during his lifetime (probably because of his many articles in National Geographic and his numerous inspiring books based on his adventures), but so poorly known after his death. I can only guess that this is partly because he lived in the age before TV was common and people still looked to magazines and books for their education and entertainment. Thanks also for all the work you are putting into the WP article on Beebe - I really appreciate your efforts to honour him - he certainly was a unique and wonderful person. John Hill (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

The discussion that you are having about issues concerning R&I seems to contravene your extended topic ban:[2]

Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages. This includes RFC/Us about other editors where the behavior of that user on R&I is one of the major topics. These two editors should not participate in noticeboard discussions where the main topic is an article that is under R&I or the behavior of an editor who is closely associated with R&I. They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned.

Your first edit has already been forwarded to an arbitrator. Please could you stop that discussion now? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been careful not to violate my topic ban in that discussion, and will continue to be careful about that. I haven’t mentioned anything there about race and intelligence articles, or the R&I arbitration case. Discussing how you’ve treated me and Ludwig outside of these articles for the past few months is not disallowed by my topic ban. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, it does appear that you are breaking your topic ban: on a user talk page you are discussing the behaviour of an editor who is closely associated with R&I. None of this seems helpful. Whatever the issue, in view of the ambiguity, it seems ill-advised to continue the discussion. It's fine to do it off-wiki. Both of you have wiki-email accounts and there you can say whatever you like. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, from your point of view every time Occam sneezes it's a violation of some rule or other, and you do so revel in trying to punish him for anything and everything. Have you considered a career as a dominatrix? You have a knack for it, and you can make a crapload of money in that field.

--Ludwigs2 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not read WP:NPA#WHATIS? It's very well written and seems helpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci: why do you still consider yourself closely associated with race and intelligence articles? You haven’t participated in these articles since the R&I arbitration case ended last August, and you agreed to stay away from them permanently as a condition for your topic ban being lifted. If you still consider yourself closely associated with race and intelligence even after agreeing to that, and after having not participated in the articles for the past seven months, then I think that’s the real problem here. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was one of the main parties in WP:ARBR&I and you were discussing me and related matters in precisely that context. Mathsci (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, and ROFL. I am reminded of one of Oscar Wilde's witticisms: "A bore is someone who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company." --Ludwigs2 22:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read WP:NPA#WHATIS. It is really rather good and I'm sure you would enjoy it. Who knows, you might even experience some kind of epiphany. Mathsci (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of one of Abraham Lincoln's quips: "A hypocrite is someone who murders his parents, then pleads for mercy on the grounds that he's an orphan." You may have the last word if you like, not much point in carrying on with this discussion. --Ludwigs2 23:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"you were discussing me and related matters in precisely that context."

No, I wasn’t. I was discussing you in the context of your frivolous attempt to get me site-banned in February, and your more recent behavior towards Ludwigs2 in the AE sanction handling case. I didn’t mention the R&I case at all. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't TrevelyanL85A2 known to you and Ferahgo-the-Assassin in real life ? Wasn't the Request for amendment to WP:ARBR&I? Were the people you claimed had left WP because of me not directly related to R&I? Any way ArbCom has the diff. Mathsci (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I suggest you drop the subject now. It is a serious matter. If in doubt, you can ask EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for guidance. Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Occam, ArbCom clarified things for you here.[3]

@Captain Occam. In its simplest interpretation, the amended restriction requires you to disengage completely both directly and indirectly from the topic ("including user talk pages"), unless specifically responding to others ("They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned"). This means it prevents you making even coded or oblique references. If you wish to avoid further sanction, perhaps the safest way for you to interpret how this applies to you is to ask yourself before you make an action/edit how you would perceive the same edit/action if it had been made by a topic-banned adversary of yours. If you conclude that such an action/edit of theirs arguably breaches the restriction, don't make a similar one yourself.

Note the use of the words "coded and oblique" which applies exactly here. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t an interaction ban, Mathsci. I don’t talk about the original R&I case or the articles anymore, but when you’re continuing to consistently make attempts to get me blocked or banned, talking about that in the context of what’s wrong with your behavior falls into the same category as replying to you here. Your efforts at this are an ongoing issue, and dealing with it requires being able to talk about it. And I can see that you still haven’t let this go, because you’re continuing to bring up your accusation of sockpuppetry/meatuppetry/whatever, involving someone who’s made no edits of any sort since January. Does this mean it’s time for you to post yet another AE or amendment thread about me, despite ArbCom having asked you to stop doing that? It’s been a whole two months since your previous attempt, after all.

By the way, as far as I know the most recent editor who said that they were quitting the project because of you was Julian Birdbath, who had nothing to do with the R&I topic. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zarboublian is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole. So is Julian Birdbath. So is Taciki Wym. These were all the same wikistalker, who tracked my edits.

You already tried to include a discussion of R&I and WP:ARBR&I in the latest AE case and were told you could not, except by email to ArbCom. So that fairly well defines what you can or cannot talk about. As far as the latest discussion you initiated is cocerned, I did not make a report at WP:AE this time, as I thought a message here would suffice. Any further discussion spontaneously initiated by you making "coded or oblique" reference to R&I or WP:ARBR&I could result in a report at WP:AE, not necessarily by me. Mathsci (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of proposed motion

This is to notify you that a request to clarify the terms of Remedy 5.1 of the Race and Intelligence arbitration case has been made and a motion which may affect you has been filed here. For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies ^talk 03:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:

That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:
Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.

All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't noticed that, although I'm not sure why I would have, since I've never participated that discussion. Were you wanting me to offer my opinion about something there? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Beebe

I just convert all the citations in references section to use a template. Added some {{Harvnb}} tags. Ran the Citation bot manually... It cleans up citations and adds missing info. Moved the footnote section to use four columns instead of five. There are two Dablinks in the article; Guggenheim Foundation and Cinema. Bgwhite (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah crap. Sorry about the mixup. It is fixed. Couple of things

In the text, the Welker references use 1976 and 1977 as the years. But in the references section, 1975 is the year. Are they all the same reference?
I can't get the Fucheng reference to "click" correctly. I'm not sure what it is, but will still try and work on it.
There are two references of the style "Beebe, C. W. The Bird p. 187, quoted in Gould (2004) p. 104". I'm not sure if this is correct. Normally, you would cite Beebe and leave Gould out of it as Beebe is the original source. But, I'm not sure about a quoted citation. I'd probably just reference Beebe.
They birth date and death date of Beebe is not sourced.
In the infobox, there is one award that is referenced. Is there references for the others?
Bathysphere (4 times) and Trinidad (5 times) maybe over wikilinked.

Bgwhite (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Beebe article

Hi! I just got the chance this morning to go right through the Beebe articvle again. You have done a MAGNIFICENT job with it - it is a real credit to you. I made numerous edits - almost all of a very minor nature - trying to save space by eliminating double spaces between sentences, replacing "pages" with "pp" and the like. There was very little else I could see to do that would have improved it. Congratulations and thanks. John Hill (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about broken references and I apologise for any inconvenience. Also, unfortunately, I won't be able to help with the template - I am only here in Vancouver, Canada for another few days (to celebrate my mother's 97th) - so I will be really busy with family matters. Then, next Monday we leave for 5 weeks travel in China. I do hope it goes well and smoothly, though. I am worried others may find the article a bit long but, other than this, I think the article is ready to submit for consideration for GA status and I send you all best wishes for that. I have had great fun showing the article to some of my family here who had met Beebe and they were all thrilled to see it. Thanks again for the hard work you have put into it - it is much appreciated.

Appealing topic ban

You would need to show that your contributions would be a net positive. My best advice is to contribute non-controversially to some other topic you enjoy; the Beebe article seems to be a great start. However, I do not think an appeal would be successful at this point. Cool Hand Luke 21:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I. Mathsci (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to the legalization of abortion

Did you want to review this, or shall I? aprock (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferahgo and I just recently finished spending around six hours looking through the past six months of archives of the abortion talk page, so I don’t especially feel like doing this again for another article right now. I’m fine with you searching the archives of the opposition article if you like. I might be ready to do this again for another article in another week or so, but you’re welcome to search any of the other articles in this topic area before that. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m assuming this relates to my comments on proposed decision for the abortion arbitration case. Is this project something that would help with the issue Jclemens and I expressed concern about there, about the ways that editors can sometimes escape the consequences of severe incivility? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a few ideas about that, yeah. Initially I hope it to be a big think tank, where we can pool ideas and come up with workable proposals. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m kind of doubtful about whether a Wikiproject would be able to fix this problem. The real problem is with admins, and the inconsistent way they handle sanctioning of editors.

If you’re interested in pursuing this idea, though, someone else who I think you should contact is user:Ludwigs2. For a while he was working on a proposal that he called the “town sheriff”, in which the editors involved in a topic would elect an uninvolved admin who has the responsibility of ensuring that everyone remains civil on those articles. It sounded like a promising idea, but I don’t think he’s still working on it. If you’re interested in discussing ways to solve the problem of incivility getting overlooked, I think you should ask Ludwigs2 about his town sheriff idea. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have many ideas in my head. The main purpose of the project (at least at this stage) is a central place to pool ideas. The more heads together, the more likely we can come up with something, methinks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was nothing to do with abortion. I simply posted these notices to everyone who responded to DR RfCs. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chávez

Please don't (unintentionally) glorify banned users by highlighting their names or discussing the merits of their edits, such as at Talk:Hugo Chávez. I assume you are not contesting the ban (particularly not at an article talk page), so per WP:DENY, nothing about the user should be discussed. When you notice an admin revert an edit without comment and immediately indef the account for "abusing multiple accounts", it would be reasonable to assume the admin knows what they are doing, and it's not helpful to (unintentionally) speak up for the banned user by commenting on whether the admin has breached WP:INVOLVED. Obviously a proposed edit is justified by various policies, and never by a reference to the actions of a banned user. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tool inquiry

Is there a way to figure out where you have cross paths with another editor from 2 or 3 years ago? My memory isn't a WP:RS on some of these past interactions. Alatari (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there’s a way to do that, I don’t know what it is. Why does it matter? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about you but if someones name sounds familiar and there is a gut reaction to that name I would like to be able to reference my past dealings with them and confirm my gut feeling is accurate. Alatari (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking around a little, it looks like there is a way: [4]. Sorry or not remembering about this in my first comment. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sir! Alatari (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. -User:alatari

Blocked under Arbitration Enforcement

Based on the review of your editing in the last year, and in particular your return to the project (after an extended break) specifically to comment on the proposed sanctions related to Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) in the Abortion arbitration case and edits related to the same user following this case, it is clear that you have returned to the disruptive behaviour and battlefield mentality that was sanctioned in the Race and intelligence arbitration case. I hereby ban you for one year under the discretionary sanctions of the Abortion arbitration case for the continuation of this battlefield behaviour directed at Orangemarlin during and following the Abortion case.

As you have a history of developing high quality content (specifically the William Beebe article), this ban may be modified after three months to permit you to edit only in content-related areas of the project, and specifically to create and/or improve articles. Prior to unblocking, you must provide the name of the article(s) you intend to edit, and evidence that you have conducted research on these articles by posting a list of proposed reference sources for inclusion.

Appeal of this sanction may be made to the Arbitration Committee. As I am acting in the role of administrator for this arbitration enforcement, I will recuse on any non-public discussion of this ban for as long as I remain a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need you to clarify something for me. How discretionary sanctions work is that the first time an editor engages in sanctionable conduct, they’re formally notified of the discretionary sanctions, and if they fail to heed the warning they’re then sanctioned. I was never notified of the discretionary sanctions in the abortion topic area, and I actually was not aware that my conduct in the AN/I thread was sanctionable. (You’re the first uninvolved administrator who’s told me this directly.) Isn’t the appropriate course of actions under discretionary sanctions for me to be formally notified about this, not a ban without a warning? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you prefer, I can simply file this under the Race and intelligence arbitration case instead. You've certainly had your warning there. Risker (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in order for it to be a discretionary sanction under ARBR&I, it would have to have happened in a discussion related to that topic. (Where I couldn’t have participated anyway, since I’m topic banned.) The discretionary sanctions from that case were eventually expanded to cover all articles related to race differences, but I still don’t see how that can apply to my comments about a conflict on abortion and evolution articles.

Look, if you think my comments were out of line, I’ll accept your admonishment and also probably want some advice on how to avoid this problem in the future. But this sanction really seems out of process for the reason I mentioned above. There's a reason why discretionary sanctions are intended to be preceded by a warning, and if I’d been warned before receiving this ban, the warning would have been enough to make me change my behavior. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Occam, you parachuted yourself into discussion of an arbitration proposed decision and your first edit in over three months was to criticize the lack of sanction against an editor you have subsequently claimed to have no history with. You have done nothing since your return but participate in disputes. This is a continuation of the behaviour for which you remain sanctioned under the R&I case, and as you were participating in the discussion of the Abortion case, you are aware that discretionary sanctions were passed in that case. There was plenty of feedback even in the early edits of the ANI threads that your behaviour was not acceptable and, in fact, the community was discussing sanctions directed at you. I'm not biting; please feel free to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right. There are two more things I need to ask about this:

1: What do I need to do to appeal this decision to the arbitration committee? Since I'm blocked, I can't post an amendment thread.

2: The autoblock against my IP address also affects user:Ferahgo_the_Assassin, because she shares an IP address with me. That doesn't seem entirely fair, since she had nothing to do with any of the discussion regarding OrangeMarlin. Is there any way to prevent her from suffering from the consequence of a mistake that was only mine, not hers? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an arbitration enforcement, it can only be appealed at the AE Noticeboard or directly to the Arbitration Committee. Since you are blocked, you can email the Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org .
The autoblock lasts for up to 24 hours and then automatically disappears. user:Ferahgo_the_Assassin has not edited in the last 4 weeks and has fewer than 20 edits since the beginning of October. If she is desperate to edit sooner than 22 hours from now, she can ask to have your autoblock lifted. Risker (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the Captain. He was not warned about his being subject to Abortion sanctions. To "simply file this under the Race and intelligence" has the appearance of arbitrary and unequal treatment. The appropriate remedy is to acknowledge that the ban is out of policy and block him for incivility at a length based on his most recent block. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC) If the banning admin refuses to correct their error, I would be amenable to posting the appeal at AE NB on behalf of the Captain. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already appealed this block to the arbitration committee via e-mail, but you’re welcome to contact either Risker or any of the other arbitrators. One other arbitrator who I expect to understand this situation is Jclemens, since he knows what caused me to start paying attention to the abortion topic area. But I don’t think any of them are going to notice if you just comment here and nowhere else.

I don’t recommend posting about this at AE, and there’s a specific reason why not. Something I noticed in the AN/I thread about OrangeMarlin is that most of the editors who opposed me there are the exact same group of editors who opposed me more than a year ago in R&I related disputes. Most of the editors I’m thinking of weren’t involved in either the abortion case, or the evolution dispute that was the AN/I thread’s original subject. I don’t know how to explain why all of these people suddenly showed up again to oppose me in a dispute completely unrelated to R&I, but it seems as though they care about opposing me in any dispute I’m ever involved in. In other words, if you try to post an appeal on my behalf at AE, I suspect you’re just going to be shouted down by this same group of editors. I’m hopeful that ArbCom will make the right decision about this, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration amendment

I know you're blocked, but I should still follow due process I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Race_and_intelligence -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Review

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you are a party. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.

The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:

Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Since you are currently blocked, evidence should be presented to the committee via email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org (please see communications and privacy statement) and should be sent by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.

For the Arbitration Committee

--Guerillero | My Talk 21:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review Closed

The arbitration review of the Race and Intelligence case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

Mathsci (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct
Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) and Captain Occam (talk · contribs) are site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
SightWatcher (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.
TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 02:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

FoF 2.5 in the Race and intelligence review be amended to read: Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Banned user template

A sitting arbitrator says: "Personally, I find that sort of template distateful in any case - I don't see why user pages should be blanked and marked forevermore. Those who need to know can easily find out the user's status by looking in the block log, whilst forcing it onto a page will mark that username across the internet. The only possible reason I can see for that is punishment, to make the user suffer." According to this I am going to remove the template. If somebody is really eager to demonstrate how cruel senseless one could be, please go ahead and revert me. Thanks. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of arbitration enforcement request

Please note that I am opening up a request for arbitration enforcement related to recent off-wiki activity credibly attributed to you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unbanned

You have been unbanned under the following conditions:

Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles in the Race and Intelligence case in 2010. Captain Occam was blocked for one year as an Arbitration Enforcement action in 2011 under the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Abortion case. In the 2012 Review of the R&I case, Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who shared an IP and who were found to be proxying for one another, were both site-banned. Ferahgo was unbanned in March 2014. Following a successful appeal, Captain Occam is unbanned under the following restrictions:

The scope of his 2010 topic ban is modified from "race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" to "the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed".
He is subject to a two-way interaction ban with Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
If he behaves disruptively in any discussion, any uninvolved administrator may ban him from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the R&I case page.

Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin are reminded that tag-team editing, account sharing, and canvassing are not permitted. These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.

Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]