User talk:Dduff442

Welcome!

Hello Dduff442, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- thanks. Dduff442 17:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Chinese Embassy and FDSP.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Chinese Embassy and FDSP.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dduff442. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 15:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dduff442. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Skier Dude (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Dingzin Zhao website

Hi, I don't really mind if Dingzhin Zhao's views are included, but including a link to his university homepage in the middle of the article text simply looks like linkspam, possibly promoting this individual's work in general. You can add something like "according to University of Chicago sociologist Dingzhin Zhao" if you'd like to emphasize that he is affiliated with the U. of Chicago if this is the point. Alternatively, you might want to create a Wiki article on him (if he meets WP:Notability for academics) and Wikilink to it when including his work in other articles. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll mention his position. My concern was that he'd be confused for a Chinese govt mouthpiece. This section is important for balance because China is the victim as far as the rest of the story goes.

I'm only about 70% through my edits so I'm afraid the article is still a little rough.Dduff442 (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR claim is incorrect in point of fact. The phraseology was altered significantly between edits (sufficiently to satisfy Nil Einne).

On whose authority do you issue this 'warning'?

Your attitude is completely baffling. *Four* times now I've had a sourced remark deleted without prior discussion in any case and you accuse *me* of edit-warring? You made one of those reverts and did not even make a remark in the talk page, let alone attempt to achieve consensus.Dduff442 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were sourced (which it may be, now; if the data weren't properly sourced, it would be a BLP violation), it's irrelevant. Furthermore, a "revert" for 3RR includes a partial revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was sourced to the Washington Post before I ever added the remark.

Regarding relevance, it was relevant to the Post and it's certainly relevant to me. Ebell is funded by ExxonMobil precisely in order to comment in the way he does. It's an interesting interpretation of journalistic and scholarly integrity to unilaterally decide people need to be protected from this fact.

I reverted nothing - no 'partial' revert, nothing. I have had my sourced edits deleted four times, once by you. One of the reverters (William M. Connolley) is actually one of the subjects of the article, but this elicits no objection from you.

From WP:3RR: Undoing another person's edit is known as reverting (or reversion). Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason.

What have I 'thrown away'? You, sir, have thrown away a verbatim quote from a source already in the article, an article to which you had no prior objection. Justify that.Dduff442 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing another person's edit is known as reverting - this is what you need to know. It doesn't have to be a return to the exact previous text. Note also that there is no such defence as "I was correct". That the quote is exact, and from a RS, is totally irrelevant. On whose authority do you issue this 'warning'? - no-one needs any authority to issue these warnings William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC beat me to it, but:

Yes, you revert. You keep inserting the same information, which is similar to reverting deletions of it. 3RR is a solid line, but please read Wikipedia:Edit warring, because that is what you are doing. That part of the sentence, that you insert over and over (last time here) is NOT in the reference, is irrelevant, and gives undue weight. See this as a final warning, make your case on the talkpage why it should be inserted, people do not have to explain why it is deleted, for more information, see WP:BRD. Regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to pursue Beetstra to his talk page before the allegation of dishonesty was finally retracted [1].Dduff442 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote is in the W Post article. Twice I've had this now. R-E-A-D T-H-E A-R-T-I-C-L-E.Dduff442 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT, I see 5 times inserted the same (or very similar information). You are over 3RR .. please consider your situation (and no, waiting 24 hours before reinserting without discussion will for me still count as edit warring). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I dispute that I engaged in edit-warring when faced with repeated deletions of the material, I do not dispute reinserting the material. *I* did initiate discussion after this was requested. *Five* times the remark has been deleted without any discussion or prior warning.

Don't you think it worth mentioning that one of those deleting is William M. Connolley who is himself one of the subjects of the article? I've found this whole encounter bizarre -- adding a quote from an article already cited is edit-warring now?Dduff442 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is edit warring. And I did not find that sentence in the citation, it may be somewhere else. I saw you discussing, and that is why I did not block you. However, while in discussion you should not push the information. Await consensus. Explain.

A conflict of interest does not forbid you to edit. You have to be careful, but it is clutching at straws to take out opponents if there is apparently not enough to justify the edit by itself. Again, it is not in the document that is used as a reference on the sentence, if it is somewhere, then cite that, or even copy the reference from somewhere else in the document. I would still feel it irrelevant there, though. You are trying to diminish the effect of that sentence, not really WP:NPOV. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to pursue Beetstra to his talk page before the allegation of dishonesty was finally retracted [2].Dduff442 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim copy from [3]:

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies.

The piece is cited four times in the article but the words funded in part by energy companies are a bridge too far?

Three times now I've had this. Meanwhile, those making the self-evidently false accusation are part of the 'consensus'. For the record, I regarded consensus as having been achieved after Nil Einne's objections were dealt with. Whatever I may be 'trying to diminish' (and your engaged in pure mind-reading there), the six words above are fact.

After objecting (incorrectly) on grounds of fact, you are now moving towards a new objection on grounds of relevance. I'll give you that quote again: ''"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. How is it that the first part of the sentence relevant and worthy of inclusion but the last six words are not?Dduff442 (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dduff442_reported_by_User:William M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29 William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dduff442 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 24 h)

When this block expires tomorrow, please do more to work towards a consensus at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. If other editors can be persuaded by your reasoning there, they will defend the material themselves. If they cannot, then please try to reach some form of compromise rather than repeatedly reinserting the same or effectively the same material. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One editor (IP address at top of discussion) agreed with my addition. Nil Einne stated he was 'fine' with it after modifications. Then it gets reverted with allegations of dishonesty which were obviously unfounded. When that was refuted (as User:Chelydramat tacitly acknowledged), the point of attack shifted again.

There was no consensus in favour of deleting the material. The total was 3 for, 2 against (including me), 1 against with reservations. How is it fair or reasonable to delete relevant, sourced material in this context?

I intend to appeal your ban even if its not heard until after its expiry. You did not consider or address the technical objections to the WP:3RR allegation. Nor was the behaviour of editors in deleting sourced material without discussion even referred to.

William M Connolloy has since disappeared the entire talk-page discussion, and has fired off a few 'ha ha' comments. Is this constructive?

It may be that this will maybe just annoy people; the narrow point about (more than) three re-insertions is readily acknowledged. There are broader principles of honesty and integrity at work in addition to the, IMO perfectly sound, objections I raised against the edit-war claim, however.

These *two* layers needed to be considered in any decision. The technical grounds are solid, but the principled opposition to censorship is paramount in my mind. Five times a relevant and direct quote from a pre-existing cite was cut out of the article without warning. This raised a red flag in my mind. I deleted nothing, censored nobody and have a clean conscience.Dduff442 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You suffer from a bad case of WP:TRUTH. It hits most of us at one time or another. Try to fight it...not our fellow editors.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus had been achieved on including the material after Nil Einne's objections were dealt with, then it gets excised without warning. What am I to do then? When I am accused of dishonesty and faced with direct censorship?

Technically, everything I did was within a reasonable interpretation of the rules including the re-insertion of the material more than three times. The accusation of dishonesty had no foundation (as was acknowledged) and William M Connolloy's reverts were made in the teeth of a straightforward CoI which he himself acknowledges. These facts were not considered, nor was the behaviour of the other editors.

On the plane of universal principles of natural justice I was in the right and if these don't apply on Wikipedia then they can ban me. I have debated honestly, directly and with integrity which cannot be said of my adversaries.Dduff442 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest cooling off on other articles. Then consider the COI dispute, you seem to have a good case going, would not want to see it rashly disrupted by "edit war pushers". It also might be good to measure the supposed war and peace with time intervals, to be objective here. This is the process I am applying. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me offer some advice, I hope this helps. I would like to see you stay here. If you are in the right, then let it go for now, move on to something else for some time. Wikipedia content exists for WP:FIVE. Wiki is not a fair justice system. The feeble attempts at justice in Wiki serve the content and not your basic human rights or non-content related disputes between editors. Objects of arguments should always be content and principles. I like your appeal to authority, however by editing here you have submitted consent to a mob of editors at any time. First mover advantage governs the justice. If you don't have it, you are in a tough spot. You might have to have the source validated in a notice board or RFC first.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring etc

I do not have time to go through the edit warring case although it looks like you are heading for a block. Maybe by me if I get time to give it proper consideration I don't like shooting from the hip. Anyway I don't think you are going to get much sympathy from the way you are editing. Please read WP:DNTTR ref the COI template. --BozMo talk 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion

Okay I admit I'm confused. Are you trying to say WMC is trying to 'hide' this information because he doesn't want people to know one of his rivals (WMC may object to the term and say that's giving too much weight to the CEI but let's not quibble over such details) is funded by the energy companies? And this is bad to WMC because? If anything it would seem WMC would want a entire paragraph dedicated to how bad the CEI is so people know to ignore them and other sceptics and instead only get information from Real Climate and other sources written by him and his collegues? It's just that while WMC has been accused of having a COI and wanting to keep details out of the article that reflect badly on the CRU and its researchers and their collegues (including him I guess) you're the first person I've seen complaining about WMC's COI and how he shouldn't be reverting contentious negative information about climate change sceptics because of it. You may argue he's 'overcorrecting' but I think you'll find few people on the talk page who agree with that. Of course having a COI can cloud your judgement and make you make mistakes either way, but I think it's a stretch to say there's any evidence of that happening here. And remember WP:COI makes it clear that while editors with a COI are discouraged from editing articles, they're explicitly not forbidden.

BTW, I'm guessing you're not aware but both User:William M. Connolley [4] and User:Arthur Rubin [5] are administrators. Ultimately this doesn't mean that much, but when you're telling an administrator "Call in the admins if you like -- bring it on. I'm not new, don't need guidance and know who'll win if this goes to the admins" there's a fair chance you will be wrong as you were in this case, particularly when 4 or so users have said you are and no one said you aren't. BTW I'm not saying any of this so try to make fun of you while you're down or something. I did get a bit annoyed earlier on and probably didn't help matters but have since calmed down and agree with WMC that you seem to be a user who is trying to be constructive but unfortunately has wolefully misunderstood or is unaware of policy and accepted practice but reluctant to accept that it is the case. While this block serves as an unfortunate reminder of that, I'm hoping that this more off the cuff remark with little reference to policy but more reference to common sense will help as well.

As it is your talk page, you are entitled as always to remove it if you don't like it and can reply here even while blocked (well unless you're disruptive on your talk page and get blocked from editing that). Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WMC isn't an admin at present but other than that this looks spot on. I would just add for the sake of record that reverting to re add deleted material does count as reverting and does count as edit warring. --BozMo talk 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add the WMC and I don't agree on much of the WP:TRUTH of this article — so, when we agree on something, it might be wise to take note. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you reply indirectly instead of addressing my objections to your WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE arguments against my edit. Also, William M Connolloy has now disappeared the whole talk page discussion under a hat.

Fundamental principles of justice, fairness and integrity apply in this case. As the author of the Washington Post piece knows, it is quite wrong to quote an interested party without explicitly stating those interests. There are two layers to my defense: the technical and the principled. IMO, the technical points stand all scrutiny but it is the point of principle that interests me.

I was twice accused of dishonesty, provably wrongly, which you didn't find worth commenting on. One of the edits resulted from this. When it was demonstrated that the material was in fact verbatim from the source, User:Chelydramat simply shifted his point of attack without even acknowledging his attack was unfounded. This was once again not worth commenting on.

You stated "the only reason for including the information is the implication that energy companies determine the reports from the think tank". This is not correct. The statement I added was one of undisputed fact. Your rider is opinion and represents your inference, not the factual statement from the Post.

The language used was absolutely neutral. Mention of the source of CEI funding is not only relevant, it is entirely consistent with the practice of the rest of the article. The very next paragraph adds a parenthetical 'who concurs in the consensus finding of human-influenced global warming' to Von Storch. Why is Von Storch's background relevant but not that of the CEI?

WP:BLP is a red-herring. I added not one word about Ebell to the article -- I inserted a quote regarding his employer taken from the article where he was interviewed. The WP:BLP argument is without any content. Legally, it is impossible to libel someone by simply quoting a newspaper.

WP:UNDUE is similarly irrelevant: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Please quote me the relevant passage supporting your point of view because I can't find a word. Not only is the contention the CEI is funded by energy concerns not a 'minority viewpoint', it is actually undisputed and verifiable from the CEI's own published legal records. As regards prominence, the Post article -- not my chosen source of information -- found space for those five little words. The decision to exclude them from the article violated the principle of 'proportion to the prominence' of material.

If you are going to make arguments, please stand by them or retract them. WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are completely irrelevant and I challenge you to find one word in support of your POV in these pages.Dduff442 (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. My one error is nothing to your argumentum ad nauseam. Stating ANYTHING beyond Ebell's affiliation with the Competitive Enterprise Institute adds no further information to that article. This is a rather transparent attempt to discredit Ebell on your part. You would've been just as disruptive if you have deleted that whole section about Ebell. BTW, I'm kind of flattered that my user name is the only one you correctly formatted. Enjoy your ban.Chelydramat (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is tangential. I included the second half of a sentence the first part of which is already quoted in the article and this is distortion? How is possible to be NPOV with an pre-approved source, let alone with half of a sentence the rest of which is held to be ok. You don't fear you might be Cherry_picking, much? Reverting a sourced quote in these circumstances is vandalism.

I am glad you have sufficient integrity to finally acknowledge the statement was in the source and that I acted honestly. Please inform User:Beetstra that this is the case. Your post is otherwise devoid of any content.Dduff442 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonesty

It is abundantly clear that your first two edits (including the only one I reverted) did not follow the source [6] [7]. The source says nothing about "Exxon Mobil and Ford" as I've pointed out several times and even if our article says that it is irrelevant as I've also said several times. You may be able to infer that "energy companies" includes Exxon Mobil but as I've said and you've acknowledged including Ford is rather a stretch. And in any cases, inferences like that clear modify WP:OR and perhaps the specific WP:Syn part of it if you try to use additional sources to support the Exxon Mobil claim. And none of this changes the fact that those two additions were clearly not a verbatim quote from the source, not even close.

As long as you continue to claim that your first two edits followed the Washington Post source I see nothing more to discuss and don't see much chance for any constructive editing from you in wikipedia. I have never intentionally claimed that any of your other edits did not reflect what the source said. In fact, I feel I did make it clear that I was not referring to the times your added the 'funded by energy companies' quote. And as I've also said, as you seem to be aware since you've brought it up in other discussions, I'm not going to bother to debate the 'funded by energy companies' bit (although just to be clear, that isn't because I agree with it but because I've decided I don't care enough to debate it).

And yes, to repeat what I've said, if you want to have any credibility on wikipedia, you need to acknowledge that your first two edits did not follow the Washington Post source (and be careful you don't imply they did) and that it was only the later edits that did.

If you are not and were never trying to claim your first edit follow the source, then I apologise for any confusion my mistake may have caused. As I've already said, I felt my message was abundantly clear that I was only referring to the times you added 'Exxon Mobile and Ford'. If you can clarify which part of my message you felt implied that any of your other edits did not follow the source, I'm willing to take another look at it and discuss it with other editors if I don't agree with your characterisation. If you don't understand why I feel you appeared to be claiming your first two edits were following the source I'm willing to further explain why although I feel that way although I do feel I already explained why in my original message.

Incidentally, once people revert your change with an explaination of why, it is automatically contentious, saying it isn't doesn't get you anywhere. If you are the only one pushing a change against multiple other people and keep pushing that change despite multiple people reverting you you will be blocked as happened in this case except in a very, very small number of circumstances (i.e. cases when you are removing BLP violating material). As other people have pointed out, and I hinted at, when you have several people who are usually in strong disagreement on an article against you, it's a very good idea to take a step back and consider what you're pushing carefully. (If you do want to continue to push it, then that entails discussion not continually adding it against reversions.) It doesn't matter how good your addition was or whether it was correct or wise and in many cases even those you may agree with your change are liable to revert it and are not going to feel any sympathy for you when you are blocked because it is a clear cut violation of WP:3RR regardless of whether you want it to be.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was never claimed that my first two edits were from the source (see edit summary from diff: [8]), rather it was clearly stated the info came from the CEI page.

After the third edit, the quote was verbatim from the Washington Post. It was at *this* point that Chelydramat's allegation of dishonesty was made. You knew this to be unfounded but let it stand nonetheless. You allowed the edit-warring proceedings to go forward clouded by an allegation you knew to be false. This is what I was referring to. Take a look in the mirror and ask that guy if his conscience is okay with this.Dduff442 (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I know or care what allegations Chelydramat has ever made? I'm not the god of wikipedia resonable for handing out any an all punishments to any user who does something wrong. It's not my business to deal with whatever editing problems Chelydramat has and I was not even aware he/she made such allegations until now. I'm not even an admin...

In other words...

If you have problems with another editor, either take it up with the editor or take it to the appropriate forum. You're also welcome to mention in reply the allegations are false of course and to point it out to any editor under the impression that the allegations are true. But don't blame random people for problems you have with other editors.

Incidentally, even if Chelydramat's made such false allegations, I'm not aware of any evidence it affected the the 'proceedings' in any way. I'm not even aware if any other editor noticed these allegations. The reason you were blocked is because you continually edit warred despite clear warnings from multiple other editors in good standing, none of who made such inaccurate claims AFAIK, most or all of who didn't agree with your second addition based on their own understanding of policy and experience with wikipedia and what is and isn't acceptable in articles not because of something some random editor with about 30 edits to their name, most to talk pages may have said, who may not even be aware of WP:3RR policy for all I know and didn't give you a warning nor take any part in the request for you to be blocked.

BTW, I acknowledge you did not originally claim that the Ford/Exxon Mobile bit came from the Washington Post. But I never said you initially claimed it did. What I did say was when you made this claim [9] and I quote

A sourced comment gets deleted three times in one day without prior discussion in any case. Wow. The Washinton Post -- the cited source in this instance -- did not find the comment 'extraneous'. The remark was taken verbatim from the source precisely in order to avoid this kind of discussion.

(emphasis mine) you appeared to me to be implying that the additional two edits were from verbatim from the WP source. Particularly since your comment was made at 16:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC) and you had only made 3 edits to the article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident at the time, the last one being at 12:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC). Your next edit was at 16:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC), in other words after your comment to the talk page about 3 reversions. This means by all logical conclusions, the only 3 reverts you could be referring to in the comment above could be my revert, WMC's revert and Chelydramat's revert. The first two reverts were not reverts of a verbatim quote as you earlier and now acknowledge.

So I pointed this out in my comment in reply at the time [10]

Also your original two additions were not the exact phrase used in the Washington Post article, as you well know. The article does not mention any specific companies, and you included Ford which isn't even implied by the article as it is not an energy company. While you did later revert to using the WP wording, your comment above seems to imply that all 3 times the reversion was of you adding a verbatim claim from the WP which is clearly not true. (There have been 2 times now of course.)

(again emphasis added). I did this for several reasons. First I felt your comment could cause harm to the discussion since it was important new editors were aware that two different versions were being discussed. If editors read your comment the same way I did they may have thought only 1 version was being discussed. This is likely to make a number of the comments confusing. Also it is inherently unfair for editors to that WMC and me reverted the 'verbatim quote' when we did not (WMC may have reverted the verbatim quote later I don't know and don't care since it isn't germane to the discussion) since what we did was revert an extremely poorly word addition that was not verbatim and didn't come from the source at all (and in fact as I've pointed out several times couldn't even be inferred from the WP source since Ford is not an energy company).

It may not have been your intention to imply that all 3 reverts were of the same version and of a verbatim quote from the WP, but your comment still seems to imply that to me so I still feel my comment is resonable. And I was resonably careful to word my response to make it clear I was not saying this was your intention but said your comment implies it to me, in other words, you were free to say it was not your intention and I would have and (would still) accept that and the problem would be solved with no further drama.

Anyway, when I received your complain about dishonesty I presumed you were accusing me of acting dishonestly. I had no idea you were for some odd reason, complaining to me about Chelydramat (and perhaps out users, since you mentioned another name in my page although you seemed to be referring to a third user as well, I don't know who and don't really care, who I presumed at the time was me).

As I've made clear from my earlier comments, I had no idea you were complaining to me about random other users since I had no expectation that someone would complain to me about other random users. Therefore I presumed you were complaining about the fact that I had challenged your claim that your first 2 additions were verbatim from the WP and responded accordingly. Since this was evidentally not your intention, I apologise for any offense caused by my earlier reply but it seemed to me at the time that you were accusing me of being dishonest in saying the first 2 additions were not verbatim from the WP and this could only be the case if you were still claiming they were.

BTW, I've already said it's not my responsibility to deal with other users problems. However as I hinted at in my first reply and you can now see in black and white, I explicitly acknowledged that you were using the WP wording (my second emphasis) after the first two edits. This is a key point because whatever Chelydramat may have said, I was implicitly challenged his/her allegations that you're complaining about even if I did not challenge him/her directly. Anyone who choose to follow the whole discussion would see this. If they trusted me over Chelydramat, they might have just accepted this. If not they probably would have looked into it themselves. Ironically if you had politely asked me to take it up with Chelydramat at the time (on my talk page), I may very well have done so even though as I've made clear it's in no way my responsibility.

Regardless, I now see even less reason why you feel I have any responsibility to do something about Chelydramat when I already effectively challenged his/her claims long before you were even blocked (and I made clear at the time I had grown tired of the discussion and would likely not be participating any more). In case you've forgotten, I didn't even take much further part in what resulted in you being blocked, the only thing I did do was offer some advice after you'd been blocked which I hoped would help you become a better editor.

P.S. I hope you're aware that wikipedia isn't a WP:battleground. Getting all worked up about the wrong doing of others is rarely likely to help when you've made a clear cut violation of policy and are refusing to stop meaning a block is the only option. Two wrongs don't make a right and although the other user may be blocked in some instances and it's fine to politely point out if you feel you've been treated unfairly in comparison to another user involved in some edit war, whatever Chelydramat may have done isn't even one that's likely to result in a block unless it becomes a behaviour pattern. In many cases, it's not even going to make people more sympathetic to you particularly when you leave harshly worded messages to completely unrelated users who are trying to help you become a better user.

What this means is if you genuinely feel another user is harming the encyclopaedia you should politely discuss problems you notice with their behaviour with the user first. If that proves futile, you're welcome to take that to an appropriate avenue as I've already said. But make sure you're not doing it solely to punish or make fun of the other user. If another user has acknowledged their mistake and agrees (to try to) not make it again, then in most cases the matter should be over and there's no point harping on about it with completely unrelated users. I'm not sure with this is what Chelydramat has done, but again, I'm not particularly interested since it concerns me in no way.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. It does look like User:Beetstra was not aware the the energy companies bit was in the source . I'm not sure why. As an experienced user in good standing I doubt it was intentional dishonesty. Most likely he/she was just confused. Perhaps he/she really was mislead by Chelydramat. Perhaps the confusion over the two different versions (which as I've said, I don't think you helped) partially caused this. Perhaps he/she simply searching for your precise wording since you claimed it was verbatim (it's not, it's legitimate paraphrasing but is not verbatim). I don't really know. You can ask him/her if you wish. I am resonably sure if you'd taken this up calmly with Beetstra at the time, he/she would have corrected or explained him/herself.

Regardless none of this is an excuse for edit warring. As I've said several times, if you're the only one pushing a change to a stable version, against multiple users particularly on a contentious page only recently coming off full protection you have to stop. It doesn't matter how wrong or mistaken the other users are. And there are only very few exceptions when you can violate 3RR, (BLP and simple vandalism being two) but other users being mistaken is not one of them.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.P.S. While making a response on Beetstra's page I noticed something else. Chelydramat made this comment [11]:

No. Though I missed that while skimming the article, that still doesn't change the fact that

(emphasis mine again) This comment was made at 17:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC) which was before I eventually made my last comment there at 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC). While as I said in my comment, it was an EC in other words I largely phrased my reply before I saw Chelydramat's post this means Chelydramat had already acknowledged he/she was mistaken before I eventually made my post. In other words, I'm seeing even less reason why you expected me to do something about it.

Sorry but the more I look at it, the more confused I am as to what you expected anyone else to do. I should emphasise that from what I can tell, the reason why this confusion arose doesn't appear to have been because of any intentional dishonesty on anyone's part but because you said you were copying something verbatim when you were (legitimately) paraphrasing. In other words, the confusion partially arose because of an unfortunate choice of wording on your part (and too quick searching from other users). While there's nothing wrong with that, we all make mistakes and none of us have perfect English, if your comments have caused confusion you should hopefully realise it's not entirely the other parties faults

Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going to address the relevant points.

The dishonesty allegation was on this talk page througout the discussion, notwithstanding Chelydramat's backhanded admission. This morning, Beetstra acknowledged his error on his talk page.

At a minimum the dishonesty allegation forced me to tackle two accusations at once. What followed was a travesty of due process without balance or fairness. User's credentials were the evaluating criteria instead of investigation. Beetstra's intervention was presented as procedural objection but was in reality motivated by objections to the content.

I find incredible your admission that you didn't even notice the dishonesty allegation, which was made repeatedly throughout the discussion. What was the point of your involvement if you were paying so little attention?

Extreme mental acrobatics are required to conclude my third edit was 'controversial'. It was cited to an existing source, clearly mandated by the policy above, and passed by you as 'fine'.

This was the zero point -- consensus had been achieved after the move to a verbatim quote made to satisfy you. The information was not 'the same' as earlier. The edit-warring started with Arthur Rubin's revert -- why did you not object at this point? Because this was edit-warring you agreed with.

Take a look at the way the (re-opened) Ebell discussion is going now. Bear in mind thatWikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression states that "concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value" violates NPOV. All the reverts were quite wrong, and the 'consensus' arrived at was both false and invalid. Users have no authority to exclude the information while flying in the face of Wikipedia policy.Dduff442 (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points that need to be made.

during this whole brouhaha not once did you assume WP:GOODFAITH on the part of anybody else and used the words of wikipedia policy to defeat its spirit.
Second is that more than one counterpoint can be made to an arguement at a time and the refutation of one is NOT the refutation of all.

Too bad you're more concerned with spitting out walls of repetive text. Also you were not "vindicated" in the slightest, it's just that the administrators decided that the quote didn't meet notability standards.Chelydramat (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of dishonesty, I pointed out you were wrong and you replied 'No. But...'. And you lecture me about assuming good faith? You'll need to explain how I sought to defeat the spirit of Wikipedia.

I don't understand the relevance of your second point at all.

The admins didn't cut the segment, consensus was achieved that Ebell was not notable. This was more than I asked for. Arthur Rubin was isolated in suggesting reference to Ebell's funding be excluded from the article; note that he merely repeated his earlier statement rather than tackling my specific question when he last posted. The overwhelming consensus was in favour of mentioning CEI funding with Rubin as the sole remaining objector. Consensus in favour of deletion was absolute.

Your message is a little strange, frankly, considering how you found time to stop by for a gloat the other evening. It's a little late for the 'more in sorrow than in anger' tone.Dduff442 (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dduff442 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is only possible by the grossest distortions of natural justice to conclude that one half of a sentence may be reasonably quoted but the other half is somehow tendentious and must be excluded. Neither the source nor the information was disputed. The reverts were pure vandalism in this context and re-inserting the material was a valid response. How could I understand that the last six words of a sentence already quoted in the article would prove contentious? I had reason to believe consensus had been achieved after Nil Einne's objections had been dealt with. I've been accused of dishonesty, called a 'noob' etc. etc., without ever stooping to that level. When the allegation was disproven, the objectors simply shifted their focus on to new quibbles without apology or acknowledgement. Admin Beetstra warned me against further reverts nonetheless, and I adhered to the rules he stated. He went on to claim the quote (below) was not in the source. When this was refuted, he shifted his objections to WP:NPOV (in a verbatim quote from a source already in the article!), saying I wanted to weaken Ebell's statement. **It was an abuse of authority to intervene as an admin if he objected to the content and was therefore interested in the debate**, and this holds true regardless of the validity of any warning I received. Integrity demands openness in debate, not the illegitimate dressing up of objections to **content** as **administrative** matters. It would have been reasonable to present all objections together; it was not to object on admin grounds and then discover objections to the content later. The disputed statement reads [12]:"'It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research,' said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies." It is alleged to be reasonable to quote the start of the sentence and to actively exclude the end. I deleted no content and reverted no content. What I did was to reinsert the last 6 words of the Post quote above in the face of blatant vandalism. I always debated directly and honestly. Please note both the technical objections to the ban made after William Connolloy's original request, that I was banned 2 hours *after* ceasing to edit, after leaving Connolloy's revert in place for that period, and after declaring my intention to lodge an RfC on the issue.

Decline reason:

You were clearly acting against policy after clear notification of the issues. This temporary block is rather short in duration, and could have been for longer. I advise you to step away from the keys and cool down before you start editing again, as the next time the block is likely to be for a much longer period. NJA (t/c) 08:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editing

The things that matters most in Wikipedia are a thick skin and a sense of humour. The next most important thing is a willingness to be contemplative. When people disagree with you, or revert your edits, it's always useful to ask yourself what it was that prompted them to do so.

People are going to disagree with you on content, even if they agree with you philosophically or politically. My first real conflict on Wikipedia - which got pretty nasty - was with an editor who has gone on to be both a valuable collaborator and a friend. It wasn't that we disagreed on substance - to be honest, I don't even remember what we disagreed about.

Some hints for doing well here:

Sourcing

Always look for the best source you can find. If people challenge your source, look for other sources. Not to beat them over the head (although that's necessary once in a while), but rather, to see what other sources say. We want the best represenation of what authoritative sources say. Reality is always a better friend than ideology anyway.

Tone in articles

Sure, it seems like a good idea to point out that the CEI is an evil tool of the energy lobby. True as that might be, it isn't the sort of thing that we can say in an enecylopaedia article. So it might seem like the next best thing to make it clear who funds them. But think about how that looks to a reader. If you're a liberal, you can probably figure out who's who just from what they say. You don't need the extra hint. And if you aren't sure, you can click through and read the article for yourself. If you're a conservative, on the other hand, it just reinforces your preconception that Wikipedia is run by liberals. Makes you more likely to trust the source that's been "tarred" and less likely to acutally weigh the facts. For the vast middle, the people who are truly uninformed, the cue doesn't tell them anything. But it does tell (some of) them "someone it trying to manipulate my opinion".

Also bear in mind that Wikipedia is hypertext. People do click links.

Tone with the community

Yes, there are lots of people who will jump to the defence of their friends. But for the most part, if several people tell you the same thing, you should strongly consider the possibility that they are right. If you run afoul of the rules, ask people to explain what you did wrong. And listen to their explanations. If you don't find that meshes with the way the policies and guidelines are written, then ask someone about it. Find a venue and ask the crowd at large.

Sorry if this sounds preachy. And no, I often don't get it right. But it's much more fun if you avoid unnecessary conflict. Guettarda (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I'm unlikely ever to develop a thick skin. The following is obscure but sincere; it represents an attempt to condense enormous masses of reasoning into a small space. I hope you find the time to read it, or at least the second half ('An example of this is the...' and what follows).

There's a social aspect to Wikipedia as well as its practical business. Editor's interactions are important I agree. It was for this reason I pursued the 3RR affair... for the edification of others as well as myself (this is a highminded but honest admission). An accusation of intellectual dishonesty is a serious matter and I was outraged that none of those involved who knew this was incorrect could spare 30 seconds to point out this fact. People have a facility for airbrushing threatening memories from their minds; in this case I wasn't going to allow that to happen.

No doubt many of those in conflict with me are more energetic and productive contributors. I'm sure there are reasonable limits to the cynicism and poor judgement (re Ebell) of my adversaries. The former is something that needs to be tackled head on, though. It's like those experiments where someone performs an act of spontaneous generosity for a stranger and the ripples are then observed as 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc degree effects occur. A similar effect can occur in the case of sweet reason.

Imagine the 'power' a purely obstructive editor could wield. The style of argumentation would run: pick a hole, pick another hole, question your adversaries' credentials, change the subject, make phony declarations of concern and then go back to the original hole even though that argument has already been defeated. With these tactics, a skillful obstructionist could spin out even the simplest discussion literally forever and gain a veto on all progress in articles of interest to him.

This is the kind of behaviour that's strangling Wikipedia. There's only one cure: to sacrifice the ambition of maximising one's editorial influence in favour of actually making an impression on the people concerned. When unfair argument goes unchallenged for whatever reason, or people are cowed into silence, the social network gradually loses rationality until its ability to digest the challenges facing it disappears.

An example of this is the recent reaction among hard-line conservatives to environmentalism. They cannot grasp how their ideas are failing to gain any traction with the general public so, as a psychological defense, they rationalise that the whole thing must be part of some giant conspiracy. This elevates them back to the level of the elect in their own minds (we're the ones who really know what's going on), which serves to over-compensate as far as their self-esteem goes. This recourse to irrationality catapults them out of the perceived contempt of superior, snotty liberals like myself into the stratospheric heights of what they regard as true consciousness.

Is every word I've written here drivel, or just pointless, or have I no capacity to stick to a point? I'll attempt to draw the threads together with a thought experiment.

Suppose a modern psychologist could go back in time. He goes to the Feldherrnhalle in Munich at the outbreak of WW I; there, ebullient in the throng, is one A Hitler [13], a person of no consequence. The psychologist arranges for Hitler to be kidnapped, straps him to a chair and sets to work. For the first time in Mr Hitler's his life, H E * W I L L * L I S T E N. The psychologist goes about systematically undermining those irrationalities that underpin Hitler's psyche.

They say to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Obsessive hatred of individuals may be nasty but it's part of human nature -- we have no enemy's save the ones we love, so to speak. On the other hand, to hate millions of people one has never even met makes no sense whatsoever, however.

Irrationality of that magnitude cannot have a rational foundation. It cannot stand up in the light of sweet reason. The rotted edifice must crumble once the psychologist finds that toehold in his subject's confidence. Absolute irrationality requires absolute confidence, and once the confidence is dented the irrationality collapses.

So after two or three weeks of this treatment, Hitler breaks down in tears. 'Yes,' (sob), 'yes I see it all now. Daddy didn't love me. I hated him but loved him too. That nonsense about Jews was just a projection of my inner fears...' (etc. etc.)

Would this make Hitler a good person? Probably not, but it would sap his evil of its source of power. He would be rendered harmless.

So suppose I was engaged here with conservatives of the sort I described I took the approach you described; I understand I'd register more in the line of obvious achievement that way (I agree with you in other words). Suppose I did things, uh..., my way once more, though; maybe that way I'd still register some achievements only of a less tangible variety.

(I'm not trying to prove these points, merely to outline reasoning that springs from very deep roots in my mind; nor do I equate my adversaries in any way with Hitler... the parable was illustrative only; extremes of this sort make the core issues clearer)

In short, I believe that fair argument is important -- if I had any flair for brevity, I'd just have stated that I believe in the Socratic method and left it at that. Ludicrous though it may seem, I pursued them as much because they are important to me even if I'm not sympathetic to them as because of my own all too delicate ego.Dduff442 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Go through my scanty list of edits prior to last week and you'll see that this incident was unique in my time on Wikipedia. It arose from special circumstances. If I went through the same thing again I'd respond with less cattiness to Nil Einne for his initial revert but I'd probably still make that final edit; I considered all the rules I could locate and (obscure though it must seem) earnestly believed it was justified (others may differ). If I'd ducked it for fear of the consequences I'd have felt guilty.

WP:HARASS

You have been making a number of demands and accusations on User talk:William M. Connolley, none of which have any noticeable bearing on any of his activities or actions here. You violated 3RR, he reported you, and you were blocked. If you do not wish to receive another block for harassment, I suggest you cease pestering him about your ill-founded view that you have been mistreated. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at his talk page -- he moved Hypocrite's intervention to a separate section specifically so he could continue to engage with me. Negotiations continue in an atmosphere of relative cordiality. I suggest you ask him if he considers I'm harassing him.Dduff442 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My very first post on his page said he could blank it if he didn't like it. The whole engagement was frankly bizarre and I can't understand why Connolley engaged with me if he'd no intention of accepting my offer. As I told Hypocrite, it's no skin off my nose. I've already dropped the issue once today (four or five hours ago, check my contribs list after Hypocrite's message); Connolley returned to it of his own volition. *Baffled* Dduff442 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The harassment claim was eventually abandoned.[14] Dduff442 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tol

Generally, you may want to read some of my work before you make further edits.

My objections to the Copenhagen Consensus 2009 are laid at in the introduction to my report for them. Richard Tol (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supposed to contribute to my own page.

Gary Yohe was the lead author of the 2008 contribution to the Copenhagen Consensus, and he took the lead in blasting Lomborg. There is a piece by the four authors which repeats the same points, but it was never published.

The introduction to my chapter in the 2009 Copenhagen Consensus says that the overall design is wrong. The methane paper by Anthoff says the same thing. (This is all in the public domain.) I told the panel this, and several journalists. (This is not in the public domain.) Richard Tol (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of protest does not signify agreement. No journalist has ever asked me whether Lomborg correctly cites me. He rarely does, but he does it so often that I could spend all my time writing letters to the editor.

You have no evidence for my opinion on CC08, so you cannot say whether I'm for or against or indifferent -- other than me stating here that I fully support Yohe in this matter.

You have evidence of me protesting against CC09. Richard Tol (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: You have no evidence (by Wikipedia standards) of my opinion on CC08. Anything you write is speculation, so you should not write anything. Richard Tol (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:2xChinaEmbassyBelgrade.png

Thanks for uploading File:2xChinaEmbassyBelgrade.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:ChinaEmbassyBelgrade3.png

Thanks for uploading File:ChinaEmbassyBelgrade3.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]