User talk:Drolz09

You are making good points, in the Climategate talk page however

whenever you start talking about other editors, it gives other editors an excuse to stop attempting to rebut your solid points, and concentrate on taking you to task for process violations.--SPhilbrick T 15:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Climate lobby?

Climate Lobby's Response to Ambiguous Incident Involving Criminal Hacking and Possibly Other Crimes

On your user page you write the above. Could you explain to me what the "climate lobby" is? BTW, I hope you understand that this joke of yours pretty much demonstrates that you have a stated POV and you intend on pushing it. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what business of yours is my user page? I never tried to hide the fact that I am sympathetic to one side of this issue. No less clear is the sympathy you, ChrisO, TS, etc. have for the other. Having a POV does not mean that one cannot write NPOV articles. I am getting exceedingly tired of your harassment. Drolz (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me about my "sympathy" for the "other side". I don't believe I have argued in favor of or edited as a proponent for anything less than the upholding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What you see as two sides, I see as a unified whole. What you see as black and white, I see as shades of grey. It is not either or, but rather some and many. And the many here outweighs the some. What this means is that there is a majority POV that is based on the facts, and a minority opinion based on politics, and one should not outweigh the other. Until you realize this, you will continue to have problems here. The best way to get a hold of this is to pretend you are a journalist. As long as you uphold these ethics, you will never have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: I am advocating including things in the article based on the fact that they were said, thus accurately describing a debate. You are advocating excluding one side of the debate because it is not the majority. Does this mean that if a green party candidate is allowed in the US presidential debates next election, he should be left off of the transcripts because he is a minority view? Is that what a journalist would do? Drolz (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Journalism ethics and standards and tell me what you think. Wikipedia takes these ethics seriously, but implements them in their own form, a house style, if you will. WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS form the basis for this ethical approach. If you can give me one example of what you are advocating, I can answer your question. As for your Green party candidate example, I would have to give you an answer in terms of Wikipedia, and since you haven't really provided one, I can't respond to it. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"So and so says the emails indicate malfeasance and gives the following explanation: 'blah blah blah.'" That meets all the above standards. Aggressively preventing the inclusion of these viewpoints is a perversion of WP:RS and a violation of WP:NPOV. Drolz (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I asked for one specific example. Show me exactly what is being prevented here. Just one. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the Jones email about FOIA? For just one extremely obvious example? Drolz (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make sure I understand. You are arguing for the inclusion of a primary source, in particular, a primary source that was stolen? Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP allows for the inclusion of material written by the subject. Insofar as the email is only intended to be a source for the fact that a particular comment was made, it is a completely legitimate source, especially because the main problem BLP identifies with self-sourcing is self-promotion. Drolz (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering. If your argument was made in good faith, you might have some justification for finding a good, neutral secondary source to support a paraphrase. But as it stands, you are only trying to add a disputed primary source to disparage the subject, so your bad faith comes back to bite you. You are intentionally trying to "hurt" Jones, and that's what the BLP policy prevents. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so my argument is accurate, but because it's invalidated because I made it. That's a violation of WP:PA. Drolz (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WIKILAWYERING. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got around to reading that page, and am amused by this quote, among other things, "An offense is always specific, i.e., addresses a particular argument or reasoning, while an insult is generalizing and dismissive. For example the phrase "You are wikilawyering" is an insult." It also seems to identify the punctilious enforcement of these policies as the main meaning of "wikilawyering." Kind of like how you and others have perverted the RS and BLP policies to exclude information that contradicts your POV on the Climategate page. (Given that I've explained myself repeatedly there, I won't bother to do so again here.) Drolz (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another out of context quote. That's not what it says, and the only person "perverting" the RS and BLP policies is you. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you

I'm with you on the Climategate article. It's very one sided in favor of pro-climate. Macai (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, that is where you are mistaken. The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident isn't about "pro" climate view or against. You've got the wrong article. Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the problem. Viriditas doesn't even realize that he is biased, and won't even admit that the article has anything to do with scientific credibility. I keep trying to tell him that the relevant issue is what effects this scandal is having, not whether the scandal itself is legitimate, but he won't listen. Drolz (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is not about pro and con climate issues, but rather it is about the unauthorized data theft, hacking, and crime against climate scientists. Whether or not issues have been raised from the documents that have been released, is a matter for investigation. Anything more than that is opinion. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you'd support the creation of a second page then I take it? Seems like that one could just be called Climategate, since it would deal specifically with the fallout and not the theft itself. I agree with this position, let's do it. Drolz (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've said nothing of the kind, and on the talk page I specifically argued against a POVFORK, and if you create it, it will be nominated for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BUT WAIT! We can't do that because the "scientific community" is the only notable source on this subject, period. This logic somehow manages to not fall flat on its face while discussing gay marriage. Macai (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "public opinion" of the CRU incident; Most people have never even heard of it. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Time_to_Separate_Climategate_from_CRU_Hack

Zero support for a POVFORK, and zero support each and every time it is brought up. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, 49% of people have followed Climategate either very or somewhat closely.[1] You just gave your support for it, pretty explicitly. Drolz (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TALKNO and do not misrepresent my comments again. Also, if you continue to deceptively quote sources as you did above, you could be blocked or sanctioned. The link you cited about the CRU incident says, "Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely." So you either didn't read it or don't understand what you are reading. Futhermore, your source, Rasmussen Reports has a history of right-wing bias. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Be precise in quoting others." I am fully in compliance with TALKNO. "49% of people have followed Climategate either very or somewhat closely." Exactly. If your problem is with Americans/People, just deal with it. Drolz (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That quote does not appear in the source you cited. If you continue to invent quotes that don't exist, you could be sanctioned. Also, that information is based on a survey of 1,000 people were asked biased, leading questions by RR and I see nothing about CRU or "climategate" in the survey questions online.[2] The survey article simply says: "This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely." Nothing about 49%. Please stop making shit up. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were no quotations. You need to reevaluate your behavior. Drolz (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's 20% + 29%? Macai (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More deception. The actual results are here:[3]

How closely have you followed news reports about e-mails from scientists involved in global warming research?

20% Very closely

29% Somewhat closely

32% Not very closely

16% Not at all

2% Not sure

Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Like I said, "most people have never even heard of it." Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no more than 16% have not even heard of it. In order to follow it "Not very closely", as opposed to "Not at all", you have to at least heard of it. LRN2ENGLISH. Macai (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the meaning of "most". Do you? Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, that conclusion is astoundingly wrong. Please stop editing this article, if you honestly think you can reach that conclusion.--SPhilbrick T 16:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 18% Not at all or Not Sure with 3% MOE means "most people have never heard of it" to you? Drolz (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "most" is troubling you? Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious failure to communicate here. Are you saying that 18% constitutes "most" people? Or are you saying that only people who follow the news "very closely" have "heard of it"? Neither statement is supportable. Drolz (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers do not indicate that any significant majority is familiar with or has even heard about the CRU incident. And a survey of 1000 people by Rasmussen, is less than convincing. If, however, they had named CRU, and simply left it at that, that would be interesting. They didn't because most people have never even heard of them. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know absolutely nothing about polling. And way to pretend that you didn't say "most people have never heard of it." Drolz (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CRU wasn't named, the numbers show no significant majority was familiar with it, and the question doesn't reveal anything interesting. Most people have never heard of this incident and Rasmussen is known for their bias. If you ask the average American in any city if they have been following the CRU incident, they will look at you with a blank stare. Most Americans are not aware of this issue and know nothing about it. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Rasmussen, "#1 in accuracy for Election 2004"[4] is unreliable and biased. You on the other hand are an unimpeachable source for what the "average American in any city" knows about CRU. Drolz (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where was term "Climatic Research Unit" used in the survey? What is the number of the majority of Americans who are familiar with it? Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think they followed the other "news reports about e-mails from scientists involved in global warming research." Yeah, that must be it. Drolz (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"How closely have you followed news reports about e-mails from scientists involved in global warming research?" How does this indicate public opinion on the matter? What is public opinion on the incident? Can you demonstrate that most Americans are familiar with the issue? Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remember how this argument started. I cited that poll in response to your absurd claim that ~"most people have never heard of it." I never used the poll as a barometer on public opinion and it would make no sense to do so. Incidentally, I would be willing to bet that more people have heard the word "Climategate" than know anything about the security breach at something called "CRU" in the UK. Make of that what you will. Drolz (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another misquote. I said, "There is no "public opinion" of the CRU incident; Most people have never even heard of it. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 10 Dec" Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence shows you are wrong. --SPhilbrick T 16:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I pretty clearly put the ~ in there to indicate a paraphrase of the quote I was responding to, which was substantively accurate. More importantly however, semicolons separate independent clauses. I very explicitly responded to "Most people have never even heard of it." At this point you're just looking for anything to harp on, and it's pretty silly. Drolz (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of talk page guidelines

Per WP:TALKNO: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." If you continue to move my comments about and pretend I said something when I didn't, you will be reported for disruptive editing. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, Drolz09. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Drolz09. Thank you.

MfD nomination of User:Drolz09

User:Drolz09, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drolz09 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Drolz09 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to resolve MfD

I suggested at your MfD that the deletion proposal could be resolved if you moved content to a user subpage. I believe it best belongs on a user subpage. You are relatively new, so you may not even know what a user subpage is. In addition, it would be best to include diffs, so readers could find the exact statement, and view it in context. I can help you if you are interested. --SPhilbrick T 20:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a fair solution to me. If it will resolve the issue I will be happy to move the quotations to a subpage. Thanks for your support. Drolz (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to run out shortly to a BB game, but when I return, I will help.--SPhilbrick T 21:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drolz09, I suggest you back up the quotes you've collected so that you can easily retrieve them later in case you have further reasons to bring wiki-charges against you-know-who in the future, which given his pattern of behavior seems likely. I fear you won't be allowed to keep it publicly accessible on Wikipedia and that your user page is at risk of deletion. BTW, would Drolz09 be violating any wiki-rules if he started a blog about the misbehavior of certain WP editors?Flegelpuss (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let them intimidate you

Regarding your comment on another user's blog about winning the Talk arguments but losing the edit wars: their game is numbers, intimidation, and good understanding of the 3RR rules on edit warring. Understand the rules, collect and share reliable sources, don't make edits unless at least one other person editing at the time will support you, and don't be intimidated by threats. (WP:EW) Flegelpuss (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent advice. Drolz ⁰⁹ 10:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on the receiving end of a block for edit warring. Oddly, I was the only one blocked, which is strange, because to have an edit war, you need more than one party. The rules are tilted against us Drolz; the sane people. Macai (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that I would have been blocked if I had continued to edit the mainpage, and if Viriditas hadn't lost his mind. Drolz ⁰⁹ 11:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re, responding,

Re, your message, you should do as Vir asks as it is policy. Go have a read of WP:UP#NOT. The userpage, or userspace, is not to be used to house a list of misdeeds of another user, unless it is going to be used in dispute resolution, such as RfC. You already said that you are not going to pursue any sort of action against Vir, hence, such a list as you have is against the rules, and needs to be deleted immediately. You aren't allowed to keep lists like that around.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re, your message: Wrong. Number 10 in the previously linked, page: Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason. You are recording their posts, taken out of context. That is recording of percieved flaws. Comments regarding the flaws are not necessary, and insisting they are is wikilawyring. You have had several people vote delete and tell you why you are wrong, and yet you still insist you are right. You are wrong, learn to accept it.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 04:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, quoting people is against the rules on here? Also, being told that one is wrong by many or even all people other than oneself does not make one wrong. See: argumentum ad populum. Macai (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re, your message, the norm is civil communication, the perceived flaw is uncivil communication, however, as has been stated, these comments have been taken out of context. You have continuously evaded this question at the AfD: What does it have to do with constructing an enyclopedia? Here, I'll answer for you: nothing. The userspace is not to be used for things like this, it is to be used for improving the encyclopedia. If you want to start a blog and list the quotes there, fine, just as long as it isn't on wikipedia, however, I will not say that what you say there will not have any influence on what happens here. As for you, Macai, in this case, it does. Several established users telling a new user that he is wrong. Your argument doesn't fly here.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's "established" users, now, telling him he's wrong. I guess that means it becomes more true since they're "established". But my argument "doesn't fly here"? Is that to say that logic itself doesn't fly here? Because that's basically what I just used. Also, care to tell me how one gets the privilege of being considered an "established" editor? Edit (i.e., post) count? Understanding (i.e., complying) with demands by other "established" editors? What?

And I'm not so sure you should talk about a userpage failing to be about constructing a better encyclopedia. I mean, really, what does that Agent Smith quote have to do with making a better encyclopedia? How about the hummingbird photo? Really, who cares about your SHA-512 commitment? These things have nothing to do with constructing a better encyclopedia. Dare I say it, just about every user page on Wikipedia has little to nothing to do with constructing a better encyclopedia. Why single Drolz out? Your premise leads to a conclusion that I sincerely doubt you actually believe. Macai (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macai brings up a point I think I hit before. "Helpful for the encyclopedia" is clearly not a standard that is enforced with any degree of regularity in user pages. Drolz ⁰⁹ 04:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did good faith just fly out the window with me, or are you incapable of inference? The agent smith quote, if you bothered to read it, references purpose, something I feel strongly about. This helps with the construction of the encyclopedia in that it belays to other users how I feel about my contributions to WP, and therefore, helps them communicate with me better. The humming bird photo belays that I like birds, again helping users communicate with me easier. The SHA-512 encryption, if you bothered to read into that at all, has to do with my real-life identity, which I have not released to the public. It is there for the simple purpose of identifying me should my account become compromised, or such, so that I may gain access back to it. So yes, you are wrong, my userpage has everything to do with building a better encyclopedia. I am not singling this user out. Go ahead, show me other userpages or spaces which have been used to house perceived flaws of others. I'll send the to MfD. I don't know about you, but I read ANI regularly, and that is how I found this page, and that is why I sent it to mfd. It has nothing to do with singling out an editor. Further. Your argument doesn't fly because it attacks the arguments of others, stating that, because they all agree none of them count, and does not address the individual points made in every argument, which all reach a common ground on agreement: the userspace is not for something like this. Indeed, it has everything to do with logic. Let's use some of your 'logic' against you: By your logic, vandals are right for vandalizing the encyclopedia, as everyone agrees that it is wrong. I don't think I need any more examples than that. The point? Your argument isn't based on any logic at all. As to established editors, those are editors who are obviously not new, and know most policies and guidelines, including the important ones discussed in that mfd.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly don't believe that "because they all agree none of the matter," but it is important to realize that five people making the same argument is still only one argument. Drolz ⁰⁹ 05:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given any argument to include it, it doesn't violate any rules(when it obviously does) isn't an argument. You've been asked multiple times how it improves the encyclopedia, but you have refused to answer.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you two reasons right now: 1. The same one you gave for your userpage; it is a reflection of me. 2. Keeping the page sets a precedent for limiting the corrosive influence cabals have on wikipedia. Drolz ⁰⁹ 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can't, as it is not a reflection of you, but specific quotes by a specific user. Secondly, no, it does not. We already have policy such as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. This page doesn't even say such things are bad, it simply lists them, so there is no possible way you could argue that it does anything but list quotes that you find amusing.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I mean. In showing what I find amusing, it reflects on me, just as your bird picture is not a "reflection on birds," but on yourself (also it's not a reflection on another user as none is named). And I mean that by deleting the page, cabals will undoubted be emboldened to pursue such frivolous attacks later on. Drolz ⁰⁹ 05:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your Agent Smith quote helps anyone communicate with you. Telling us about your personal beliefs isn't exactly helpful in an encyclopedia. Neither does telling anybody that you like birds.

Alright, let's talk about user pages that "have been used to house perceived flaws of others". We'll start with yours. Your user page, says:

Fix the WP:MOS violations found in this link, which the user, User:Justme89 changed various instances of countries, like United States or United Kingdom to that of US or UK, which is inappropriate per WP:MOS. Anyone who sees this is free to help me in this cleanup issue. I'm currently on page two or three, I forget, of his contribs.

You not only discuss a perceived flaw of Justme89, but you name names, unlike Drolz. Please submit your own user page to MfD.

Now, about my logic. I never said that they are wrong because there is a majority, just that they're not automatically right. You did, however, argue that the majority is right because it's the majority here. Macai (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not perceived flaws of that user. First of all, Drolz does not have a good reason, as his reason is 'these quotes by Vir amuse me'. Justme89 is indefinitely blocked for editing abuse and sockpuppetry. There is no 'perceived flaw' here. It is what happened. The user was indef blocked for his edits, and socked in order to continue them. This sock was then blocked as well. Second, this is not a list of perceived flaw, but my to do list, or did you fail to read the section heading? As to the smith quote, it belays to users that I feel strongly about my edits here, and not that I take it as something casual. That helps with communication, and whether you believe it does or not, does not change the fact that it does. As for telling people I like birds, it would help them understand how I might feel in regards to any contributions I might make to bird-related articles. But since you are attacking my quote and my own work(I took that picture myself), why don't you tell me what agreeing with another user has to do with improving the encyclopedia? Or what about your name and where you live? What does that have to do with improving the encyclopedia? The userpage is meant to give general information about the user. This is the reason your page exists how it does, and why mine, exists how it does. However, it is not intended to insult other users by calling direct quotes from them amusing, and hinting at the existence of a cabal where none exists.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most important thing I take away from this: "There is no 'perceived flaw' here. It is what happened." Isn't this exactly the case for my page? They are undeniably "what happened;" there is no 'perception' involved.

Would it therefor be okay if I put at the top of that page, "These are the kinds of things that amuse me"? Seems like that would meet your burden. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The largest difference here, that you seem to discount, is that Justme89 was blocked indefinitely for disruption and abusive sockpuppetry. Vir is not blocked indef, and you are not seeking any action against them. Posting that quotes by them amuse you could be seen as insulting. I shouldn't have to explain why. If I do, let me ask you this: How would you feel if quoted you out of context, where you made a fool of yourself, and commented that I found said quote funny? It's essentially poking fun at another user, and isn't allowed.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit hat the user was making a fool of himself? It sounds like you're in violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Macai (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the strawman arguments, and don't put words in my mouth.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a flaw being real doesn't make it a nonperceived flaw. Let's not forget that the quotes Drolz cited are just as real as this banned user discussed on your user page. Second of all, you're the one claiming that the Agent Smith quote helps Wikipedia; you're the one who has to prove it. That is unless of course you want to let Drolz say that his Viriditas quotes help Wikipedia without having to back it up and leave it at that. Third of all, I'm going to come out and say it: a good portion of my user page does absolutely nothing to do with making Wikipedia better. But guess what? I don't care. You're the one telling me that all user pages must in some way help Wikipedia, not the other way around, and you've yet to prove that. You've also yet to prove that your user page helps any more than mine; simply asserting it as fact doesn't make it true. Now, how is quoting a user insulting them, unless what they have to say is horrible or idiotic in some regard? Please explain how you can say that quoting someone is insulting them without implicitly insulting them yourself. Macai (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I never said that the flaw was real, what I stated was that it was an action by a user that got them blocked, and I needed help fixing it. A perceived flaw would be stating that you live in NY is bad, for listed reasons. However, it is not that, it is as I previously stated. Second of all, the user is blocked, not banned. There is a difference, please respect that. Thirdly, go have a read of WP:UP. For the specific sentence: Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project. In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute.

I don't need to prove anything. I already told you it's purpose, if you don't believe that, that's your problem. My userpage is about me as wikipedian. It tells users I may contribute to bird-related articles, and why. It also tells users that I take this site, and my purpose here, seriously. I don't need to prove any of this, and your Bare assertion fallacy doesn't apply here. That is why I put those things there, if you don't believe me, that is your problem. Fourthly, calling another editor's quotes amusing is insulting, as you are essentially 'laughing' at them for making mistakes. Do you understand that, or should I post paragraphs upon paragraphs of quote of yours taken out of context that I find funny, and laugh and laugh and laugh. It isn't constructive, and there is no possible way you can argue that it is.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was an insinuated flaw. Or at the very least, it was no less insinuated than the comments on Drolz's user subpage. My apologies on not distinguishing between a ban and a block. I'm a forum user at heart and am used to the word "ban". About your quoting of WP:UP, I don't see how it's even plausible, nevermind likely, that Drolz's user page would bring the project into disrepute. I mean, really, some silly, unattributed quotes? Come on, man, what kind of sane individual would read that and think, "Oh, golly - I can't read Wikipedia anymore! This page is absolutely disgusting! I can't believe these people published that! This makes everything on Wikipedia less credible. I guess I'll have to disregard everything I learned on the facial cumshot, scat and snuff film articles, because this incident is just too offensive for my tastes."

Well, you don't need to prove anything anymore than Drolz does. He might think those quotes contribute a great deal to the Wikipedia project. If you don't have to prove that your user page has merit, why does he? And sure, it could be perceived as insulting to have your quotes laughed at. I just don't think it's a big deal, since the entire point of the Bushism article is to do just that, and it happens to also be an article that's largely founded in reality. Macai (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I can't imagine that it would bother me if there were no way for anyone to know I was the one quoted. Viritidas has a userbox that says "This user prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war." Isn't this offensive to anyone who's ever engaged in an edit war? I also don't see the importance of one user being blocked. There's no contention that Viritidas did not in fact say these things, so it's not as though the user having been blocked gives a kind of "verifiability" that isn't present here. And since I don't actually accuse Viritidas of having made these statements in any kind of negative fashion, there's no deficit there either. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, it isn't offensive because it does not directly quote any one person, or reference any one person. You directly quoted Vir. For the importance of a block, you can refer to WP:HARASS, or the specific statement: User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.(emphasis mine). That aside, as I said above, you're essentially laughing at Vir, with your explanation that the quotes of what could be perceived as mistakes in communication amuse you. Not to mention you insinuate that Vir is in some kind of cabal.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really tell who you are addressing, but if you do want to post a statement I have made on your user space, you are more than welcome to do so. Personally I would prefer that you do attribute it to me, but it is also fine with me if you don't. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vir however has taken offense at what you have done, and wrong or not, you are being very rude to him/her. Take note, on wikipedia, if someone is rude to you, you do not respond in kind, but remain calm, as per WP:CIVIL.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I am stuck on the belief that that page doesn't reference any one person, at all. Also, that quotation, if I am reading it correctly, means the user's own page, not your page in reference to them. Frankly I also don't think that me quoting rude things that Vir said to me, and putting them on a subpage constitutes rudeness. If anything the rude behavior at this point is him trying to dismantle my userspace. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes are those of Vir. They cannot be taken as if from anyone, but only a single person. A quick skim of history would tell anyone who they reference. Further, you link, from your userpage, to a wall of shame. I don't think need to say anything more.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no history of Vir's name on that page. It seems like it would take an awful lot of detective work to find out that they were, and if someone was going to do that level of inquiry into me, they would find them anyway. Like I said, I am will to add more quotations to the page, so that it can't possibly be considered a page about anyone. Drolz ⁰⁹ 07:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the objections are getting ridiculous at this point, but don't think that it's beyond the realm of possibility that people will perform "detective work" here to shut their opponents down. The dark forces of the Daily Kos began systematically auditing the history of User:Young Trigg for incriminating material after it came to light that (s)he expanded the Sarah Palin entry shortly before her VP nomination. The user has since retired from WP. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 08:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second billing

It doesn't necessarily mean you're not the breakout character. Henry Winkler refused to take the first credit on Happy Days, even after Fonzie had become the breakout character, out of respect for his costar and friend Ron Howard.

I reverted your edit because, although none of the refs used the term "breakout character", one did say she had "stolen the spotlight" which as a practical matter is the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use the definition at the top of the page, which says, in part: "a character that becomes the most popular, talked about, and imitated is a breakout character." Note that this is sourced. I accepted the original addition of Blair on these grounds (I told the editor who added her originally that he'd have a better case for her in the originally-intended meaning of a character who displaces an original lead character (the way Alex Keaton and Urkel did) in the books section, as the author of the original books said she started off with Serena as the main character but realized after two volumes that Blair was just more interesting since Serena was too perfect)

This has been settled since shortly after the page was created, as a result of this AfD. I was there at the time and part of the solution was that I agreed to keep this page up, so I'm sorry if it seems like I'm owning it, but if I didn't this page would be a mess. More than it is. The Blair entry is multiply-sourced, which is more than some other entries, as the adding editor complained when I kept removing it.

As used in discussions by fans and critics, it seems to have several meanings: a) the Fonzie/Urkel meaning (which maybe should be considered a disruptive character), b) the meaning you're giving it and c) a character who emerges from an ensemble (like Spock did, and like it seems Blair did).

I agree this is confusing, but unfortunately (to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld) we edit Wikipedia with the definitions we have, not the definitions we'd like to have.

You know, you could have considered that I might have gone to bed (it's not really a secret that I live on US Eastern time) before deciding I hadn't responded and you could go ahead and revert.

I'm going to ask James26, who added Blair originally, to join this discussion. If the two of you can reach an agreement, that would be better than you and me having a slow edit war. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, give James a chance to respond. I won't revert this time ... I felt based on the second definition he had a point. But give James a chance to respond. You don't know what schedule he's on. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. James hasn't been on for a few days, but that seems to be in keeping with his schedule. As I said, I accepted his rationale under the second definition (which, I think, goes for Spock as well (by the end of the first season, he was Star Trek. I think Nimoy got second billing above the line. Where does this rule that you can't have second billing and become a breakout character come from, anyway? I didn't see it in the article).

If he doesn't respond, maybe we should consider 3O. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to you since I don't watch that show enough to say. But, let's wait till James has his say before we finalize anything. Meantime I'll leave that section of the article to be. Daniel Case (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Drolz, here's a suggestion: remove all the stuff they object to and store offsite. I suggest keeping a spreadsheet of diffs and quotes at Google Docs, in case you ever need them for dispute resolution. If it's stored privately, there's nothing they can do about it.

You are relatively new here, so I suggest you read this essay. The reason that essay exists is because some editors are more equal than others. You have to behave better than them, which means that while vested contributors may maintain long attack pages with extended commentary, and do so without sanction, you are not allowed to do so. That's not the way it should be, but that's the way it is. So just take all your evidence stuff offsite so they can't use it against you. If you continue to fight for equal treatment here, you will be banned. That's just the way it works.

Be the bigger person, play by their rules, and survive here to edit another day. ATren (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truly Kafkaesque. Did GoRight try to have it taken down? Flegelpuss (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[5] ATren (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail news, special investigation

(Drolz, in case you're no longer reading the voluminous Wikilawyering on the Climategate discussion page, I'm cc:ing this here for you).

The Daily Mail has a news Special Investigation with an excellent analysis, including an excellent description that references among others McIntyre's analysis of the "trick...to hide the decline" which I previously submitted above. So this is an unquestionably RS that describes that analysis. The graph and a summary of the description should be included in the article. Here are some excerpts:

Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he [McIntyre] says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.
There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical - and much more significant...
Briffa knew exactly why they [IPCC] wanted it, writing in an email on September 22: ‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ But his conscience was troubled. ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple - I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’...
Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.
According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.
This is the context in which, seven
weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.
All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.
On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.
‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.
‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’
...as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’.
On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines.

Flegelpuss (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Year-old attack pages "for possible use"

Drolz, you may be interested in this page which is an attack page that has been up since January 2009 "for possible use in an RFC or Arbitration case". This seems to me to at least technically violate the "imminent" requirement of Rule 10, but not even GoRight has challenged it, so it seems to be acceptable practice. See also GoRight's counter-attack page. If you decide to create a page to assemble a case for RFC or administrative action against Viriditas, I've collected a two or three IMHO unambiguous and quite a number of arguable instances of personal attacks by Viriditas besides the ones you've collected. Attacks against Macai and myself as well as against you. OTOH he seems to have calmed down recently thanks to your efforts, so perhaps he will reform, we'll see. Flegelpuss (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't say I'm surprised that there's a history of behavior like this on Viriditas's part. I guess I'm going to have to do some more research on this situation to evaluate the best course of action. Drolz ⁰⁹ 07:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your efforts on the CRU leak talk page. You clearly recognize the situation for what it is (ironically, it mirrors the CRU incident itself in many ways), but you might want to be careful not to push too hard. Avoid calling the cabalarmists out by name. They won't hesitate to block you, and WP:AGF would make a convenient excuse to do so. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that you are very correct in this. Drolz ⁰⁹ 01:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drolz09/DrolzSig

That page can easily be found and vandalized by vandals, or people who are indefinitely blocked who are trying to avenge any 'wrong' you have commited against them, such as helping to get them blocked or the like. I suggest you either move it to a sub-page whose name ends in .js(such as User:Daedalus969/Sig.js(my sig page as an example)), or, in the goal to conserve space on WP, just move it to your 'custom sig' box. It is small enough that it will fit without a problem.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This occurred to me actually. I had made the sig page in the hope that I could just have the smaller tag signed to the page, but I stopped using it when I realized it didn't. Submitted for deletion. Drolz ⁰⁹ 18:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent attacks on other editors at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Your opinion on how the article is being edited is welcome, the way you express it though is problematic. Confining my search to the last 200 edits on the talk page, I found the following comments by you:

23:49, 13 December 2009: Guettarda: You are not asking him to "assume good faith," you are demanding that he ignore a pattern of bias stretching out over weeks or perhaps even longer. It's one thing to assume good faith on the first edit, but once there are mountains of evidence pointing the other way, you're talking about willful blindness.
23:53, 13 December 2009 (2 successive edits):
23:52: This is exactly the problem with cabalist activity. You are all pushing the same spurious arguments, but you use your numbers to make it look like there are a lot of reasonable arguments, and 'consensus' against other editors who are trying to bring balance to this article. There is no way that a reasonable outside observer would not determine that there is POV collusion between TS, Guerttarda, Viriditas, etc.

23:53: What's worse, is that you have arranged for an article about a developing story to be locked, which is facially absurd, and certainly not a means of improving The Project.
00:54, 14 December 2009: "Why is this happening?" It is happening because a group of four or five editors has taken possession of this article and relentlessly driven it towards a very specific bias. This group of editors has used every trick and tool at their disposal (including full protection) to mau-mau an article that ought to be about a controversy into a press release on why that controversy actually isn't one. And at the same time, these editors play the consummate victim, always the one on the wrong end of some awful POV pusher. What could you possibly expect but for the people you have gone to such lengths to exclude and vilify to escalate their own rhetoric in response?
05:20, 14 December 2009 (3 successive edits):
05:15 (excerpt): The overriding problem here is that the "cabal" editors refuse to admit bias.

Now my interpretation of your words is that you believe that some editors are subverting the neutral point of view policy and inserting their own opinions into the articles. Further, you believe they are acting in a concerted manner. Now this being the case, you should stop cluttering the talk page with your complaints, and follow dispute resolution. As it stands, your complaints constitute personal attacks on your fellow editors and serve no useful purpose in building an encyclopedia. Dispute resolution is not an optional path to take. It is the only legitimate path to expressing your concerns about the conduct of other editors. --TS 12:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to be more explicit: please abide by the Wikipedia:Civility or you may be blocked. You have not commented there in the last ten hours; when you do, please try to stay narrowly focused on the topic of improving the article without reference to or insinuation about other editors. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and toss in my two cents, here, as I feel that "several established users" may very well be abusing the intent of the various WP policies to control the Climategate article and browbeat user Drolz09 into submission. I don't know if Drolz is 16 or 60. I don't know if Drolz is a man or a woman. I don't know what Drolz does for a job. I especially don't know whether or not Drolz is right or the editing cabal is right. I *do* know that Drolz has made some good edits and has served as a worthy Devil's Advocate for that article. I also know that I stopped trying to make any contributions to the article because I felt that the editing was too personal and contentious, and that no good (and certainly little truth) was going to come of it. Credit to Drolz for sticking with it, even if that offends some folks. Because Drolz is correct: as the article stands now, it might have been written as a press release by Al Gore. This story has two sides, but every effort is being made through wikilawyering and the WP:3RR to present only one of those sides. I would really, really like to have a group of neutral editors take a look at this article, toss out the crap, and pare it down to about eight or nine good paragraphs. Nightmote (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Cabal

Hi I noticed your neutral personality over at the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident talk page. I have been working on the "Climate cabal" section over at WP:LOC. However this section keeps being deleted by certain users due to supposed attacks. Maybe someone as skilled as yourself and find a NPOV on this section or pass this invitation on to someone els.--The PimpHand $ 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuing disruption

Stop inserting yourself in discussions that have nothing to do with you. My comment is directed towards AQFK only, not you. If I have a need for your opinion, you will be notified. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not AIM. You are way out of line. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop disrupting talk pages. My concerns with AQFK have nothing to do with you and your comment was blatantly false and disruptive. Go away. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting applicable comments on talk pages is not disruptive. Moving other editors' posts without their permission is, however. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not involved in the discussion. User talk pages are for contacting the user. It is not about you. Furthermore, your comments were blatantly false and disruptive. Again, go away. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your place to say who is welcome to comment on a talk page. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is. It is called basic civility and common sense. I've asked you to stay away from me. My comments have nothing to do with you, and you are now wikihounding me. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're on Drolz' talk page asking him to leave you alone. This is unbearably ironic and lulzy. Macai (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did it ever occur to you that I have AQFT's talkpage on watch because I have posted there? Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When someone asks you to stop on Wikipedia, you're supposed to stop. Now, stop. Stay away from my edits and don't concern yourself with me. Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if I ask you to stop editing on Wikipedia in general, you have to do it? Macai (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request interaction ban on Drolz09. Thank you.

December 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Jehochman ^Talk 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, containing a proposal relevant to this editor:

I'd forgotten that Drolz09 was the same user whom I'd recently ~~warned~~ approached about his repeated accusations of bad faith and conspiracy to subvert policy. In view of that, Drolz09's recent interactions look more problematic than I at first thought. While an indefinite block may seem rather extreme, Drolz09's pattern of abusive interactions with other editors has been well established. While the subject of global warming has been notorious for interpersonal squabbles, user conduct related to the article "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" has been reasonable, with Drolz09 and one or two others being notable outliers. I support the indefinite block and, should he ever be unblocked in future, I propose that a topic ban on global warming, broadly construed, be considered as a substitute. --TS 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--TS 11:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that makes perfect sense. Viriditas breaks the rules and I get blocked because of it. Those diffs don't even show anything too bad, and certainly not anything unusual for the CRU page.

Also kind of lame that this basically goes all on Viriditas's word without giving me a chance to speak to it. Drolz ⁰⁹ 11:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=First of all there seems to have been some conclusion that I am an SPA sockpuppet, with as far as I can tell no evidence except that all my edits were on one page. What do you expect though? I was interested in the topic and saw that that page needed work, which is why I started editing. None of the diffs reveal anything that was unusual for the CRU page, and Viriditas assumed bad faith as often as I did (along with essentially every editor on the page) The diff that shows a deletion of another user's comments is probably a result of an edit conflict when I was still figuring things out. Aside from this the whole thing happened so fast that I was unable to make any reply to Viriditas's accusations, which were seemingly taken at face value. [6] This diff for example was a direct quote of the user in question, I can't imagine how this can be used against me. Drolz ⁰⁹ 11:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should perhaps take a look at the context of those posts, where you will see other editors doing exactly the same things, and probably worse. Also, all of those diffs are from like five or more days ago. You say I was warned about this behavior, but I'm pretty sure that all or at least most of those diffs are from before the warnings. Drolz ⁰⁹ 11:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least unblock me such that I can respond to this in a civilized manner on the actual thread? Drolz ⁰⁹ 11:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

You registered this account 22 months ago, waited 16 months, then made just 11 edits over six months, and then jumped into a highly contentious article, making numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against other editors. You received a couple warnings, failed to heed them, and got blocked. I'm not convinced you're a new editor, but socking is not the reason for the block. You're blocked for your overt deeds. There is an ongoing WP:ANI discussion about this block. Please don't unblock without a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 11:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you want to say, please post here and somebody will copy it to the ANI discussion, or provide a link. Jehochman ^Talk 11:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, the example of disruptive editing where a user's post is deleted was most certainly an accident. And the only one I expect. It seems outrageous for you to simply assume that I am a sockpuppet, as seems to be the case, because I edited a controversial article. Wouldn't you expect people to start editing when they see an article that interests them? Drolz ⁰⁹ 11:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And moreover, all of those diffs are old. If you look at any of my recent posts there's nothing at all objectionable about them. Drolz ⁰⁹ 11:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I find it ridiculously unfair that I am essentially unable to defend myself while Viriditas hurls one attack after another at me. Drolz ⁰⁹ 11:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are from 12/8, 12/8, 12/8,... they are all from 12/8. The warnings were given on 12/14. Drolz ⁰⁹ 11:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this is what happened here:

I said some things I should not have a week ago
I was warned not to keep saying those things a couple days ago
Viriditas moved my post on another page and then flipped out and made this post
I was then indefinitely blocked based on things that two days ago had been seen by two editors to warrant only advice Drolz ⁰⁹ 12:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Please see above. I would rather be able to defend myself at this hearing than simply be unblocked after an expression of contrition.}}

Jehochman has proposed unblocking you on the basis of you accepting certain conditions. Please see WP:AN/I#Discussion of possible unblocking conditions. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason that I have so few actual edits is because the CRU page was protected, I was told to wait for 'consensus' before making edits, which I did, even though no such thing ever came. Drolz ⁰⁹ 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to be unblocked based on conditions. I want the chance to defend myself, and if based on the merits of my defense I am to be blocked, I will be fine with it. Drolz ⁰⁹ 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so averse to letting me make a defense in that hearing? I made a few posts describing the incident with Viriditas on AQFT's talkpage, and while I was afk for like an hour, this thread developed into a fullscale inquiry into my history, culminating in an indefinite block, without my responding once. I am here now and I don't see what it could possibly hurt to allow me to respond. Drolz ⁰⁹ 12:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post anything you want to say here, and I (or somebody else) will copy it to the discussion so that everyone is sure to see. Jehochman ^Talk 12:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been, and nothing has been copied over. Drolz ⁰⁹ 12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what gets copied over is an ominous "his response is not very encouraging." Drolz ⁰⁹ 12:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, could you put together a statement in the section below? Jehochman ^Talk 12:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no need for any sort of contrition or apologies. I'm looking for an agreement to certain simple conditions (see WP:AN/I#Discussion of possible unblocking conditions), nothing more. Jehochman ^Talk 12:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drolz09

1. All of the diffs which were relied on to establish my pattern of behavior were from 12/8.

2. The two warnings I received were on 12/14.

3. There is no evidence that I continued any questionable behavior after that date.

4. This ANI started with Viriditas moving my talkpage posts without my permission. Prior to this point I had not engaged in any uncivil behavior with him probably since around 12/8, and as you can see from the diffs I provided, I was civil even when he was moving my posts.

5. Some of the evidence against me is way out of context

The Apis deletion was an accident when I didn't understand edit conflicts
The ChrisO diff about what the article was about was a direct quote of ChrisO, not taken at all out of context
The battleground behavior is something I was never admonished for and I was really just mirroring the behavior of other editors in a highly contentious article

6. The reason I have so few "productive" edits is because I was told (By viritidas) not to edit without consensus. Consensus never came, which is why all my posts were talkpage, for the most part.

7. ChrisO and TS are involved parties and not neutral witnesses, if this wasn't clear.Drolz ⁰⁹ 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. The two diffs Mackan79 just linked are par for the course. Drolz ⁰⁹ 12:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. The "Laundry list" I collected on my userpage was not some technical project full of diffs or anything like that. These were just quotes by Viriditas (many of them highly inflammatory) that I copied for the hell of it, while he was ranting on my talkpage. It took me about 15 minutes to figure out what the process for posting an RFC was. Drolz ⁰⁹ 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to maintain that it is monumentally unfair to force me--the defendant--to post here and hope that someone will copy my posts to the trial. Drolz ⁰⁹ 12:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Again I repeat the reasonable request that I be allowed to participate in my own defense. Drolz⁰⁹ 12:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

New Evidence

Wow, I need to be allowed to respond to this. This is outrageous. Drolz ⁰⁹ 13:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to it here, then. Obviously your talk page is not blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have to post in such a ridiculous "phone in" fashion on a my own hearing. Drolz ⁰⁹ 13:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. 22:23, 16 December 2009 - Attacks ChrisO again: Chris calls my opinion "pure unsourced speculation," I say he is "engaging in 'pure unsourced speculation.'" Is this seriously being used against me?

2. 02:34, 15 December 2009 - ChrisO asks Drolz, "So what would you add and what sources would you use?" Every time I (or essentially any editor besides Viri, TS, ChrisO, and a few others who were very much on their side) tried to add a source, it was rejected on grounds that were constantly varying. All this post is is a statement that we needed to establish firm RS rules for the article.

3. 02:42, 15 December 2009 - Attacks Viriditas: "You are absolutely immune to reason.": Viriditas never listens to arguments and pretty much embraces IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm sorry but it's ridiculous.

4. 05:15, 14 December 2009 - "The overriding problem here is that the "cabal" editors refuse to admit bias. For one, this is already in evidence as one of TS's points on my talkpage. Two, it's pretty obvious that I used "cabal" in quotes because I was just trying to find a way to reference them. The thrust of this quote is very neutral, just saying that people with POV can still make an NPOV article, and that it would be more smooth if people admitted to having POVs.

5. 0:54, 14 December 2009: "Why is this happening?": Again already in evidence, clearly antedates the warning since the warning was given in response to it.

6. 23:53, 13 December 2009 - "This is exactly the problem with cabalist activity.": Again this is what the warning was in response to.

I object to the obvious, undisguised distortion of my comments by whoever posted these. Honestly I think this is actionable, or at least should be. Drolz ⁰⁹ 13:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To TS's point about Viriditas's conduct: Insofar as Viri's conduct is emblematic of that of other editors on the CRU page, I believe it absolutely must be taken into account. Drolz ⁰⁹ 13:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a few thoughts before I take off. First, whatever you do don't take this too seriously; follow that, and things should work themselves out. Second, definitely clear yourself before you start complaining about anyone else. Third, don't stay up too late. Hopefully this will be sorted out when I come back. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas posts to show evidence of bad faith which he denies, diffs to follow

[7] Wikilawyering. If your argument was made in good faith, you might have some justification for finding a good, neutral secondary source to support a paraphrase. But as it stands, you are only trying to add a disputed primary source to disparage the subject, so your bad faith comes back to bite you. You are intentionally trying to "hurt" Jones, and that's what the BLP policy prevents. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (My talk page)[reply]
[8] The article in question is not about pro and con climate issues, but rather it is about the unauthorized data theft, hacking, and crime against climate scientists. Whether or not issues have been raised from the documents that have been released, is a matter for investigation. Anything more than that is opinion. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (Here he basically says exactly the same thing as he accused me of distorting ChrisO into saying, also clearly shows a POV that he denies having)[reply]
[9] I know the meaning of "most". Do you? Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (Baffling PA)[reply]
[10] What part of "most" is troubling you? Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (Still going)[reply]
[11] Please read WP:TALKNO and do not misrepresent my comments again. Also, if you continue to deceptively quote sources as you did above, you could be blocked or sanctioned. The link you cited about the CRU incident says, "Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely." So you either didn't read it or don't understand what you are reading. Futhermore, your source, Rasmussen Reports has a history of right-wing bias. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (Antipathy toward "right wing bias" which he repeats later on)[reply]
[12] The survey article simply says: "This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely." Nothing about 49%. Please stop making shit up. (My bolding) Drolz ⁰⁹

14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Leave other people out of it. Would you be willing to avoid the issue of global warming and other contentious areas until you accumulate 1,000 mainspace edits counting from now forward?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the other editors who behaved in the same way or worse as I did are also topic banned.

Until I am allowed to post on the main thread I see no reason to submit to those terms. Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh

I have commented on your block at WP:ANI. I consider it to be too harsh. Editors should be given at least one opportunity to redeem themselves, and an indef block doesn't do that (in fact it just makes you angry, when really you need to be humble and apologize). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not forcing apologies. Drolz09 simply needs to agree to stop the attacks, observe policy, and take a break from global warming controversies temporarily, and then I will unblock him, or her. These are eminently reasonable conditions. The only reason the block remains in force is lack of agreement (or counter proposal) from Drol09. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This block should never have been made to begin with, and I should be allowed to defend myself on the block thread. I believe that my requests are extremely reasonable, and as yet no one has given me a single reason to believe otherwise. Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are repeated allegations of my "disruptive" behavior, and the consumption of "volunteer resources," but other than two spurious administrative actions brought against me by Viriditas, I don't see how I have consumed any such resources. Maybe the real problem is established editors who like to harass people that admit to certain political beliefs? Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you several times why I am refusing the unblock conditions. Accepting the conditional unblock is admitting guilt in a situation where I believe that I am clearly not guilty. I have already told you that if you would give me a chance to participate in my defense I would accept whatever outcome. Given the evidence I have presented, I cannot imagine how you could decide that a block was warranted. Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman: When I asked you repeatedly to allow me to post in my defense, you stated that comments I made here would be copied over to the hearing thread. Why is this not happening? Moreover, why do you refuse to allow me to post in my defense? Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping your case by arguing in this manner. I recommend that you calm down and then make a statement pledging good behavior. I suggest that you agree to voluntarily take a break from global warming-related articles for a couple of weeks, or some similar gesture of good faith. I know the indef block has made you mad (it would make me mad too), but what's done is done. Your only way out is that very large slice of humble pie. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The block is per established policy. Who's throwing away the key? I've even suggested unblock conditions. If the editor is serious about wanting to collaborate, they will accept them, or make a counter offer. Jehochman Talk 13:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)"

In lieu of being allowed to defend myself, I have a counter-proposal:

Admit that the block was unwarranted and erase it
Sanction Viritidas for the harassment on AQFT's talkpage today, ongoing harassment of new editors, and making false accusations against me here
Then desysop yourself for outrageous abuse of privilege

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support two of the three (support as in moral support, I doubt any real action will occur). I've followed Jehochman enough to know that he is a fine admin, and this is an odd blip on a fine record. My guess is someone fed him a biased summary of what happened, and a quick review convinced himself that you have been outspoken (because you have) and too quickly accepted that you might be at fault. I, myself, don't see you as faultless in these exchanges, but given the circumstances, I can't believe an honest reviewer of the entire mess would come away thinking you and you only deserved a block. Let's not bother with retribution, and move on.--SPhilbrick T 16:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman: Why do you keep asking other people why I have not accepted your conditions when I have told you several times here, on a page that you claimed to be reading? Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. That approach is absolutely not going to work. Attacking the blocking administrator will hinder, not help your case. If you keep this up, I will have to withdraw my support for your case. Sorry, but I am not going to waste my time if you aren't going to help yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this. Would you be willing to avoid the area of global warming and any other strongly contentious area (to be warned, not blocked if you innocently stray into them) until you accumulate 1,000 non-reversed mainspace edits counting from now forward? To avoid gaming, let's say a minimum of a month. Knowing that if you do go in there, someone is going to block you! I'm trying to figure out roads back for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey I appreciate your position and don't hold it against you. But I have already said that what is most important to me at this point is a fair hearing. This continues to be the case. Wehwalt I thank you for your support but the same applies to that. Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt's suggest is extremely reasonable. I strongly recommend it without conditions. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify I am not angry about the block duration. I am extremely displeased about the manner in which it was applied though. Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not reasonable. The block was not warranted. While Drolz' actions will not be confused with those of a saint, his actions are saintly compared to those of others who have harrassed him, but are not being considered for a topic ban. Reading this page reminds me of a Kafka novel, how Drolz manages to remain civil is astounding.--SPhilbrick T 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To wit:

Viriditas harassed me and posted this. I make a few comments about that incident, afk for an hour and come back to find myself permabanned based on things that we not part of the incident in question.
I ask to be unblocked so that I can defend myself and this is denied, but I am told that what I say here will be copied over.
Not only is practically nothing copied over, but Jehochman is now telling everyone that I am refusing to accept his terms without mentioning why.

Outrageous on many levels. Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm sure you're displeased now, but later on when you get unblocked and are able to edit happily, I hope you'll be glad that you didn't go down the path of so many prior editors who draw a dozen short blocks and then get community banned. Wehwalt has made a good proposal. I'd add to it avoid conflict with Viriditas. If you agree, we'll make sure that nobody provokes or otherwise harasses you. As for the behavior of others, we will deal with them in turn. Right now we're trying to help you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just agree. AN/I is the closest thing we have to a fair hearing short of ArbComm; all the other courtrooms are gone due to budget cuts :). If you stand on what you think is principle, you're not going to get anywhere. Your conduct was explainable, not excusable. As for Jehochman's amendment, that sounds fine, and I'd expect that Viriditas will be avoiding you, though I'd be grateful if Viriditas would put it in writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to help me by not allowing me to defend myself, banning me based on spurious nonsense, and allowing Viriditas to slander me? I made a very simple request, and you have not deigned to tell me why this request is unreasonable. Rather, you indicated that it would be unnecessary because what I said here would be copied over, and this has not happened. I am asking for a minimal level of fair treatment. Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, even if the global warming people are right, the world will still be here in a month. If you choose to come back to the topic then, you'll know how to engage more constructively and avoid being seen as an edit warrior. Viriditas is saying things which really are as strong as you are, but he knows how to phrase it to avoid sanction. You need to learn the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is really not why I am making this point. I don't have any interest in being part of Wikipedia if this is how it treats me. I wouldn't associate myself with anything that acted in this manner. Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, to my knowledge blocked editors are never allowed to defend themselves on ANI in person. They always have to edit their talk page, and request another editor to transfer (or in rare cases, transclude) their statements. Drolz09, you are asking for something that never happens. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block was obviously premature. It was engaged based on incidents which were not a part of the complaint that I addressed. Drolz ⁰⁹ 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not that is true, it should not stop you from accepting Jehochman's terms and returning to the fold. Please consider this. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Accept either his original terms or the ones I proposed as modified by him. Either way you get to edit again. AN/I can look into other conduct, it is not a courtroom with rules of evidence. Come back and perhaps you can be a part in improving it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, Drolz. Pretty please. With a cherry on top. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, try this, Drolz. If you agree to come back under the above conditions, I'll join you and avoid the article for 30 days, same as you. Deal? Viriditas (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←For the record, Drolz, your statements relevant to the block have been copied over. Your repeated comments, including accusations and "why isn't X being copied?" aren't being copied because they're not germane to the topic at AN/I. We don't copy every last word. If you make concise statements and/or replies to the topic on AN/I, those will be copied over for you. Railing against the admin, and general "the entire block is unfair" won't. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drolz, I wanted to repeat what to me is the most important transaction in the ANI discussion:

“

Let me be perfectly clear: I, Viriditas, agree to ignore Drolz09 on Wikipedia, and to avoid all interaction. Do you, Drolz09, agree to do the same? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean, in consequence of your misbehavior and attempt to get me unjustly banned, do I renounce my right to post in certain areas of wikipedia? No, sorry. I think this ANI needs to go through and you need to be reprimanded. Drolz09 07:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

”

In my office, if there's somebody I don't like, we avoid each other. The other editor made a suggestion to do just that. Your failure to act in a community-minded manner by accepting that voluntary avoidance led to the excessive drama, and your rightful block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BWilkins, with all due respect, I don't think you've followed the sequence of events. In short, Virinitas has been harassing Drolz incessantly and unfairly, and upped the ante by refactoring Drolz' talk page. Drolz understandably objected, and was blocked. Now Vir wants Drolz to agree to avoid editing? On what basis? We should be debating whether to block Vir short-term or indef, and applauding Drolz for his ability to remain civil in light of repeated attacks. Again, Drolz was blocked for being attacked. Kafkaesque.--SPhilbrick T 16:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block length and conditions

I think we are going to reduce the block to one week. It could be shorter if you, Drolz09, agree to the unblock conditions. If you don't agree, then I will propose editing restrictions to keep you out of trouble when you return. Please consider your options and let us know whether you could agree. Jehochman ^Talk 18:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go ahead with the week. Perhaps anxiety to get the edit button back will cause an agreement?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. Could you have a look at the venue of dispute. There's a message on my talk page from somebody who thinks there may be WP:OWN issues at the article. We should try to resolve the entire matter, not just the involvement of this one editor. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock granted

Drolz09, I'm granting your unblock request as an uninvolved admin, as I feel rather strongly that the length of the block was inappropriate, and I also think (from looking at the thread above) that you've been held responsible in a way that the person you were interacting with was not.

However: should you choose to continue editing Wikipedia and find yourself in conflicts here in the future, you need to either (a) respond in a calm, reasonable, and carefully inoffensive manner, or (b) bring the issue to one of the noticeboards in order to get opinions from the uninvolved. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you. Interesting timing. Drolz ⁰⁹ 22:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, looks like it. Seriously though, please just put it behind you and try to keep my advice in mind :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Don't alienate your sympathizers or cause them to regret having spoken up for you or acted on your behalf. Oh, and good luck. Moogwrench (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Moogwrench's excellent advice--SPhilbrick T 16:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chain of events leading up to block

I begin editing the CRU topic
After making two or three edits, I am accused by Viriditas of disruptive behavior
I stop editing mainspace because the same three or four users revert everything I post and threaten me with 3RR any time I revert
All regular posters in the CRU topic have at least a "battleground mentality"
I note that information about the political aspects of "Climategate" are being aggressively kept off the page

Viriditas, ChrisO, Guerttarda, and probably others all openly make statements saying that "this is an article about a hack" or something to that effect
I post one such statement made by Viriditas in support of a content fork, so that a separate article can discuss this aspect of the story, and this article can continue to be "about a hack"
Viriditas deletes my quotation of him and accuses me of TALKNO violations

When I point out that there is no TALKNO rule (or any sane rule) against exposing contradictory claims in an argument, and that the only real TALKNO violation was his deletion of part of my post, he accuses me of wikilawyering
False accusations of policy violations followed by accusations of wikilawyering becomes a regular pattern for Viriditas
Viriditas makes two posts so offensive that TS deletes them and posts a warning on Viriditas's talk page, to which Viriditas responds with another personal attack against me

Contentious behavior at the CRU article continues
TS eventually edit wars with another user and then uses his own edit war as justification for full protection
Probably around this time is when I make most of my 'cabal' allegations
I am warned for these, and then things are pretty civil for a couple days
Then, Viriditas makes a post on user talk:A Quest For Knowledge to which I respond

Viriditas aggressively violates TALKNO by repeatedly moving my post, even over my objections (user seems to have WP:OWN issues with all of Wikipedia)
Viriditas initiates an ANI complaint against me

I respond to the ANI complain with diffs proving that Viriditas is completely in the wrong
Viriditas then proposes a "mutual ban" or somesuch, which I take to mean a prohibition from my posting anywhere Viriditas posts
I refuse, pointing out that Viriditas was clearly in the wrong, and that I believe he needs to be admonished for his behavior

I AFK for an hour, come back to find that I have been indefinitely banned based on 6 diffs that are all from 12/8, and two warnings from 12/14

Viriditas's TALKNO violations, which began this whole incident, are studiously ignored

I request permission to defend myself on the main thread, which is not granted

Jehochman tells me that what I post here will be copied to the main thread, and only one post is actually copied
Meanwhile, Viriditas makes a series of unbelievably distorted claims about my behavior (all most all of which are "supported" by diffs that predate the 12/14 warnings)

(diffs to follow--is there a faster way to get them than just scrolling through histories? a search?)

Proposed Resolution:

Block rescinded unconditionally
Viriditas reprimanded for TALKNO violations, BITE violations, and fraudulent claims made here
Jehochman desysopped for blatant abuse of privilege
Investigation into WP:OWN and WP:CABAL issues at CRU article

Drolz ⁰⁹ 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drop it and move on, please. You're unblocked now. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second, third, fourth and fifth that motion. Don't make me look like a dickhead for defending you, because otherwise I'll go all Lou Ferrigno on your ass. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ArbCom request

Hi Drolz, please see that I've filed an arbitration request regarding the above incident here. If you would like to add your own comment, that can be done in one of the sections below just like I added mine. If you have any questions please feel free to ask. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I keep wanting to ask why you picked this name? You don't seem very droll or lulzy, is all. I suspect it makes people wonder what they're missing. Incidentally, I would like to echo some of the above suggestions that you try really internalizing the whole concept of WP:AGF, which isn't necessarily natural, but is extremely important on Wikipedia. There are noted exceptions who snipe at will, but many a more souls who went down thinking they could do the same. I do disagree with those above on one point, in that I hope you're guilty as sin, since that would justify the whole response. I haven't yet been convinced. Still curious about the name, though. Good luck, Mackan79 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that makes sense. With those who snipe at will, I just mean there are editors who are known for getting away with murder around here, and never get sanctioned (or at least never stay sanctioned) even though a new user doing the same definitely would. The point is you shouldn't take jabs at people, even if they take jabs at you. The rest was just kidding, something I shouldn't do, and the "response" was your block. If you're a sock, then at least you've been treated fairly, right? It doesn't seem to me that you are. Mackan79 (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's how they normally do it, true. I forgot your name rhymes with WP:TROLL too... you're quite the picker :) It's funny the impression a name can give. Mackan79 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll just think of you as D-rollz. Like rolls of dollars and drives a Rolls? Mackan79 (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drolz, just want to make sure you're aware of this. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom hint

Heya. Arbcom only gets involved in something if it's an issue that can't be resolved by normal community processes. Your block was more or less resolved when an uninvolved admin (namely me) unblocked you.

If you think this is part of a pattern of behavior, that needs to be addressed in other ways (for example, through RFC). Arbcom is the last place things like this end up, after all other processes fail to reach a peace. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You might want to check Jehochman's admin actions log and dig out the discussions of same from the AN/I see if you can find any sort of pattern I would let it drop, but I understand your anger at the incident and understand if you want to push it forward. However, desysoping takes considerable misconduct and I don't think you're gonna get anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climategate article

Since the current practice of locking the article to preserve the DCPR-POV shows no signs of abating, I have created a copy of this article in my sandbox here for unrestricted development. At the risk of sounding like I'm canvassing, I would invite you to make proposed changes here so we can develop an article that approaches all sides of the issue fairly and then propose our changes on the talk page with sample paragraphs to show for it. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith"

To assume good faith is a sound Wikipedia policy. You have recently reworded a sentence in "Optimism" section, Leibnitz article. What has sounded "tendentious" to you was written by me with no other intention than clarification. It is probably better now, after your modification, but your justification for change seems to imply lack of good faith from the part of the former editor. "It could sound tendentious", for instance, would have been more neutral.--Auró (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, no offense was intended. I included and quoted the word "tendentious" only in whimsical reference to the word itself having been among those removed.Drolz ⁰⁹ 02:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see that you had modified two sentences. My comment was only for the first one, and I was not aware of the use of the word "tendentious". So I also have to apology.--Auró (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]