Jump to content

User talk:Hipocrite/06/2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I just decided to check back on National-Anarchism and see that we have entered a new era of peace with respect to the lead sentence/paragraph. Nice job! Please accept this as a small token of my appreciation for stepping in. –xenotalk 14:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I was pleased at how it went. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea

Hey, remember our conversation a while back about tea? I think I just found where it is on the cupboard. See the top of User talk:Okiebradshaw. A very talented new editor he. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

RFE diffs

I think you caused some confusion by putting the same diff in twice. I've patched that up, and explicitly mentioned 1RR - please correct if I've misrepresented your intent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You like talk-backs, right?

Hello, Hipocrite. You have new messages at WT:AC/C.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied to your query on the clerks' co-ordination page. And sorry, I couldn't resist. Best, AGK 14:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to no-archive this section. Thank you for the rapid response. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Polargeo thread

I said what I have to say there, more then I planned on. Just to be clear though, I don't think you were a "Co-conspirator" (to use an overly dramatic term for this setting), I just think you're walking into his game.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so there are two people without some evil motive who believe that Lar's actions were sub-optimal? Look - I don't think PG should be editing in the involved section. I don't think Lar should be reverting and threatening to block people unilaterally. I think that both of them are over the line. You think Polargeo is over the line - I agree. Do you think Lar is over the line, regardless of what other people have done? Look at it in isolation - before his revert and threat to block two people asked Lar to deescelate. He chose not to do so - and he chose not to do so willfully. This is problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly the situation. You say "Look at it in isolation." Considering the escalating behavior I've been witnessing for weeks I both can not and will not.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
So, to summarize, you refuse to comment on Lar's behavior because Polargeo's is bad - and Polargeo's behavior being bad makes Lar's behavior ok, regardless of how bad Lar's behavior is. Got it. So all we need to do is find one person worse than us, and we are in the clear. Got it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe we can either analyze and deal with situations as they exist, or play games like you did with that paragraph above.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya i know that now

[1] would have been nice to have been told WP:BLPSPS allows for the use of this doc, i suppose i`m even deeper in the crap now mark nutley (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me why you shouldn't lose rollback for [2]? Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually hit it by mistake, i was going to check versions and restore the last one, you never hit rollback by accident? mark nutley (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a perfect explanation - I hit rollback all the time wrongly. I'm glad we've put this behind us! Hipocrite (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue II)

Positively Economics

The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue II (June 2010)

To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain

Hipocrite, would you please explain what you meant by your edit comment "pattern?" in this edit? Thanks. ATren (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really recollect what I meant. I think my longer post was about a pattern of behavior by TallMagic, but then I distilled it down substantially, as it appears the pattern of behavior is being/has been dealt with, leaving only my concern that Cla68 made something up. Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
And why would you be concerned that Cla made something up? Are you familiar with that conflict enough to make such an accusation against a long term good faith contributor like Cla? Perhaps you should consider retracting that remark. ATren (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Er, I'm concerned that he made something up because it seems like he made something up. I'm actually quite familiar with that conflict, having been remotely involved in it on the side of sweetness and lite as recently as... 2007, [3], among others, and substantial talk page involvement. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well if you know the history, then you must know the perfectly reasonable explanation for the apparent discrepancy between what Bill and Cla are saying, because I found it in precisely 2 minutes of looking. Frankly, Hipocrite, it's puzzling why you would get into a completely unrelated conflict involving Cla, questioning his integrity with an edit comment of "pattern?" so soon after you openly questioned whether he was coordinating offsite with me on CC. It gives the appearance of stalking. I also find it ironic (hypocritical, perhaps? ;-)) that while you track down and report suspected socks in CC, you are supporting a known sock against Cla.
So, again I suggest you remove your comment, because there is no evidence that Cla is being disingenuous here, while my 2 minutes of research revealed strong evidence that Bill is the one who is not being entirely honest. ATren (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you point out where WNU is mentioned on werewolves.org for me? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I will give Cla a chance to respond himself first, but that's not the point -- the point is your question assumes bad faith of a long time contributor who just happens to be someone with whom you've had an ongoing unrelated conflict; and furthermore, in that assumption of bad faith, you are implicitly supporting a known sock puppet. That has all the appearance of stalking, and I think you should retract it. ATren (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No, my question doesn't. I looked for quite a while for WNU info on werewolves.org, and didn't find it. My recollection was that Hoffman accused Smart of using "LIT" - and that recollection was verified by my re-readings. I actually don't assume bad faith of Cla68 - if I were to assume bad faith, I wouldn't go to his talk page asking for a clarification, I'd just assume that he was making things up and escalate based on that. Further, being a known sock puppet isn't bad - it's pretending not to be a sock puppet. I don't know why Hoffman didn't drop one of his two accounts, and I'm not happy about that, but just being a sockpuppet isn't enough to invalidate what you say - you also need to be either banned, dishonest or wrong. Stalking isn't having someone's talk page on your watchlist - stalking is when you follow someone from article to article - something I am most certainly not doing to Cla68, as demonstrated by the fact that it could only be argued he followed me to Derek Smart - because I had edited there before he knew Wikipedia existed - though I'm not arguing that at all. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bit of a drive-by infodump here, but this link you're looking for regarding WNU - until 2007 it was KMU, or Kennedy-Western University. And if you look on werewolves.org for KMU, you'll find a couple of links, the first one which seems to indicate at some point Derek Smart brought up KMU, possibly implying/claiming his degree came from there. That's where my quick infodump ends, I'm afraid. I was just passing by, as it were, and haven't dug much deeper. --InkSplotch (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, firstly to Hipocrite. Let me say that I feel it's one thing to assert I'm unwelcome on Wikipedia and for me to disagree, it's another thing if you find my edits to be unwelcome on your talk page. Considering the amount of discomfort I may be giving you, please feel free to move this or any comment I make to my talk page. Would you feel more comfortable if I made an account, by the by? With that said, Inksplotch, I gave the text you mentioned a quick read, and came up with this:
"To play it safe and for my own peace of mind, I had started looking into DL institutes in the US and came across KWU, which is how I was able to quote, verbatim, what I had posted. So yes, I have been aware of the implication of having an unaccredited degree *if* I wanted it to mean anything to anyone else, but me. I didn't go forward for the reasons I have already stated." The bolding there was mine, I am not sure I agree with the assertion that Derek Smart has possibly made any such claim. This link is the only evidence I've examined though, mind you. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And I expect that to have a better picture would require going through a majority of the website, but I wasn't attempting to bolster Cla68's specific argument. Hipocrite was following an exchange between Cla68 and Bill Huffman over on Cla68's talk page (itself a spillover from the ArbCom request page). In his amendment request, Cla68 brought up WNU and Huffman called him on it, saying WNU isn't mentioned anywhere on the site - which is true in a literal sense. But if Cla68 was following things back he might have read about KWU over there, followed it back to Wikipedia and discovered it's now WNU. Hence, the lack of direct link to mention of WNU over there.
As for the statement, The university at which he says Smart claims to have received a doctorate is Warren National University (WNU), it's not the main point in his statement here. Whatever Smart's exact claims, KWU were a specific part of the discussions about diploma mills (archived at Hoffman's site), and I think Cla68's point is that Hoffman's views there are reflected in edits to the NWU article here. --InkSplotch (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
With regards to the fullness of the exchange, I do know that, I've been involved with the arbitration amendment case myself, but I thank you for the explanation! My perception is that Cla68's edit as you provided did have Bill Huffman's beliefs in regards to Derek Smart as a main point. This seemed to be a statement that Bill Huffman believes Derek Smart has a degree from that university:
"The university at which he says Smart claims to have received a doctorate is Warren National University (WNU)."
I haven't seen a statement that Bill Huffman believes that yet (but I have not looked, it should be reiterated). Cla68 further seems to believe this is the reason that Bill Huffman wants negative information in the article, I.E. it is because of a battle, not an interest in advancing encyclopedic content:
"The editing history of Huffman and TallMagic at that article shows efforts by those accounts to ensure that that article contains negative information on that school. TallMagic appears to editwar frequently with IP editors who try to remove at least some of the negative information. So, the off-wiki battle going on between these two people appears to have extended from just the Smart article to at least one other article."
Notice he claims an intention for Bill Huffman to 'ensure negative content' in referencing the 'off-wiki battle'. Might I ask if you consider my possible interpretation unlikely because of, or disproven by, something I have not considered? And by the way, I thank you for your time pulling up this information. I feel it has helped me understand the perceptions at play which is, of course, quite helpful! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think your interpretation is is pretty close to my own, with one variance: I don't see the initial sentence about WNU as being that integral to the argument. At least, not in specificity. Cla68 might have a different quote from that site in mind that directly supports that first sentence, might have misremembered, or might just have been oversimplifying. From my cursory look at Huffman's site, I can see the PhD controversery generated a lot of discussion, some of which went down the branch of diploma mills, which led to KWU/NWU specifically (brought up, in some context, by Smart). The allegation that Huffman's site reflects a strongly negative viewpoint of diploma mills like NWU which has carried over to directly editing NWU's page here to reflect those views doesn't hinge on why NWU entered the original discussions, only how the sides in that dispute treated the subject might influence their editing here.
And on a side note, I've not looked at Huffman's/TallMagic's contributions here, but if they largely focus in the areas around Derek Smart and WNU/Diploma Mills, then it makes Huffman's case that much harder even if his edits aren't that overtly biased. ArbCom might view him as a single purpose account, which might be enough for them to enact a ban just to those topic areas. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hoo-boy! How many more electrons must die in arguing about who said what to whom in an online forum 12 years ago?!?!
For the record: TallMagic and I have a long history of collaborative editing of articles about diploma mills and other unaccredited universities, including but not limited to Kennedy-Western/Warren National University. (TallMagic has 272 edits to the WNU article and 360 to its talk page, I have 140 to the article and 86 to the talk page. There are also a few "defender of WNU" editors with many edits there.) User:Bill Huffman also edited the WNU article and various unaccredited/diploma mill articles before the account owner pretty much abandoned that account, apparently due to concerns about real-life harassment from diploma mill operators. In spite of all this interaction with TallMagic, I never heard of Derek Smart (TallMagic didn't edit there) until a few weeks ago, and I never saw evidence that TallMagic's attention to unaccredited schools was particularly focused on WNU. (Rather, we both accumulated many edits there because of seemingly-endless interactions with persistent users like User:Taylor W., User:Rkowalke and User:Piercetp.)
From my vantage point, it appears that Cla68 is engaged in a continuing witch-hunt targeted at Mr. Huffman. This started at the end of March or beginning April. During April it seemed like Cla68 was posting on nearly every noticeboard known to Wikipedia. After concluding in mid-April that the privacy of the TallMagic account had been "blown" by Cla68's outing efforts, the user announced that he was retiring that account and quitting Wikipedia. You might think that would have ended the witch-hunting, but it hasn't. I can't imagine what is motivating this, but I am sure that it can't possibly be due to anything that Mr. Huffman did at Wikipedia. I've disagreed with some of his edits (so what?), but I have never seen him do anything at Wikipedia that would cause me to doubt his integrity or his good intentions as a contributor here. --Orlady (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a mention of my unwelcomeness and concerns of sockpuppetry

Greetings! I once edited the Derek Smart article, almost exclusively. I later made a few contributions to the Global Warming article. A short time after doing so, a long time editor "Cla68" began to have an issue with "Bill Huffman", though your above conversation may show that I'm absolved of responsibility (maybe he noticed you and not me), I still like to take care of the messes I may make. I understand how I may seem to be singularly interested here, but I assure you that I am my own person, with my own motivations. If I can at all allay your concerns, please feel free to let me know the ways in which I can do that. I made a comment here not to be aggressive, it should be said, only because Cla68's talk page seemed a less appropriate venue. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are, but your content overlap with me is problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that all I've been doing here on Wikipedia is causing concern and upset. Is there any way that you could be assured that I'm not here to cause you, or any wikipedian for that matter, problems? 72.192.46.9 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop.

This (one example of several recently) is not helpful. ATren (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ATren that such group characterizations are unhelpful. However I acknowledge that opinions differ and that this view is not universally held (for example, Lar obviously disagrees). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with either of you. Pulling punches has not worked. Hipocrite (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate accusations

You need to stop accusing people of being sock puppets for nothing more than having prior wikipedia experience. Knowing what you're doing is NOT equivalent to being a sock puppet, and your logic in assuming so is quite detrimental to the project. I am seeing now from your edit history that you have been doing this in large volume, and I cringe to think how many legitimate editors you may have pushed away from wikipedia using that approach. Please stop, and start using higher standards of evidence. Clearly what you think is a highly refined sense of "suspicious behavior" is defective. You got me wrong, and you might want to rethink the faulty reasoning you used to do that. WavePart (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Except for the fact that you are a sock and all, and you're not seeing that I've done this "in large volume," so please cease making things up. Actually, you can shove off - you are not welcome here. You'll retire this account in a week or so when you think everyone's stopped looking - but I'll still be looking. As soon as this sock is abandoned, I'm going to waive it around like a big "told you so." Hipocrite (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
So, in essence, if he really is a sock and does abandon his account, we will have been successful at disarming a sock even while assuming good faith and not chasing a potential new contributor... yet you'll wave this around (pun intended) as an example of why more draconian measures should be used? ATren (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In summary, if he stops editing GW articles but keeps editing math articles for a long time, I'm wrong and he's not a sock. If he continues editing GW articles, he might be a sock. If he quits editing alltogether, he's a sock. Regardless of the outcome, I'll waive it around as an example of why more draconian measures should be used, yes. Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yet, he's unblocked, so the measure wasn't draconian, so your example is hollow. ATren (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know that I agree with you at all. If you agree that all new editors that are brand newish and show single-purposed difficultness should be blocked untill they agree to stop being difficult editors in the climate change space, then that's the level of draconian I support. Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

One last appeal

Hipocrite, you have been skirting the edges of civility recently: calling some of us deniers and skeptics, posting provocative comments, making unfounded accusations of sock puppetry, etc. I am making one last appeal to you to cease this behavior before I file a formal request. ATren (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to stop you from doing whatever you felt was best to maintain a high quality encyclopedia. I challenge you to stop threatening to do things (Lar, didn't you say something about threats?) and just do them and be done with it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Formal Invitation to BLP Noticeboard

Hi Hipocrite , I am inviting you to join the discussions here. The article is about a controversial Filipino preacher who was charged with rape but was never, until now, proven guilty. A POV-pusher and a critic of the subject is involved and currently trying her best to prove that the negative information regarding the subject should be at the lead section, thus giving it undue weight. Here is the link. Thanks! 180.191.74.109 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I decline, sorry. Too much on plate. Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies

Hi Hipocrite, I would like to apologize for putting my questiona about Lar's not being a check user in the middle of your discussion. That was totally wrong of me and I should have started a new section. Again, I'm sorry, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Case Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by WavePart (talk • contribs) 09:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

initiating cases

Please could you stop initiating cases based on your own thoughts. This includes SPI, enforcement, arbcom, RfC, etc.. Please please hold back and guage the thoughts of others. Every case you initiate will exponentially grow the debate and may lead to conclusions that are based on the narrow remit of the case rather than the fundamental issues. Polargeo (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you do a spell-check of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence#Evidence presented by Hipocrite, when you have the chance? I find it difficult to read because of the misspellings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
As you may or may not be aware, I am severly dislexic. It is tremendously difficult for me to spell things correctly, and takes substantial time and effort. I tried to send that through a spell checker, but was daunted by the number of red underlines. I did so again, but once more was starting to get anxious about half way through. I decided given you above comment to accept all of the spell-checker's suggestions without going to a dictionary. If any of the changes I made were wrong, please fix them, as I am unwilling to spell check the work again. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Clerks are notoriously unwilling to let editors edit other editors' sections in an RfAr. With your permission, then, I'll further correct your spelling if I can discern the correct word. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You are presented direct permission to correct any errors of spelling or spell-checking in my statement. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand how tough it is for people to read spelling mistakes all over my written work - because I read them all over everyone else's written work all the time. I apologize if I got snippy above. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You write "Multiple people opposed a one-sided rewrite of the article by David Kane in article space". It would be handy for you to list those people by user name so that we can evaluate the claim. David.Kane (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite inappropriate edit at the Gore Effect

I think it is quite out of bounds to remove a substantial portion of an article such as here in the middle of an AfD.

I agree that the article has deficiencies, and, as I opined at the AfD, it needs more support for "Rewrite to make clear that no such phenominon exists", but I think that removing almost half the article in the middle of a debate is quite wrong. --SPhilbrickT 13:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Articles should be boldly edited. I boldy edited, I was reverted, I discussed. If the only reason to include an irrelevent list is "it's at AFD," then the list should not be included. Please review other articles about jokes - do they include lists of times the joke was used? Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Why not just redirect the page to confirmation bias? Or maybe make a competing list of days when Al Gore spoke somewhere and it was unseasonably balmy? Or maybe conclude that this is a topic that no serious, respectable reference work would stoop to touch with a ten-foot pole? (Note that only one of these is a serious suggestion). MastCell Talk 22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll second MastCell's second suggestion. Instead of deleting half an article, why not try to expand it further to explain the subject better? I think climate change might be the first topic I've encountered in Wikipedia where editors were often more intent on deleting material than adding more. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll reject your suggestion. There are few reliable sources - you have regressed to again using user generated content (urbandictonary) and whatever random blogs you can. I thought you were big on not libeling living persons using blog sources - does that only apply to people you like? Hipocrite (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you presuming to know who I like or dislike and suggesting that that might have any effect on my editing? Also, are you really accusing me of libel? Please respond with a yes or no. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
No. Do not edit my talk page again. Hipocrite (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Of possible interest

Since I know you appreciate statistics and their (ab)uses, I thought you'd find this piece interesting. Apologies if you've already seen it. MastCell Talk 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Good article. Shockingly bad question on the CNN survey. But it agrees with my (very limited) experience teaching environmental science this spring. Out of a class of 50 students, I think 1 or 2 were aware of the whole UEA thing. And no one expressed any doubts about warming, which is rather unlike the experience I've had with evolution, where doubt is pretty common. Guettarda (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've often wondered about the correlation between rejection of evolution and rejection of AGW. There's abundant anecdotal evidence to suggest it's high, though obviously less than unity, and shared by a perhaps surprising range of people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of which, a college girlfriend of mine didn't believe in evolution. She was a pre-med, incidentally. Not sure where she is now, but think about it next time you go to the doctor's. MastCell Talk 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Kinda why I hate going to the doctor in the US. Back home, you knew who the person was, where they went to school, who they were related to... As for pre-meds - they're the ones who argue for the extra half point in an exam, when what they already have an A in the class, and no one but me will ever know what grade they actually got in an exam, and they're also the D students who don't come to class and haven't quite grasped what "mitochondria" are. Guettarda (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Reminds me of an essay I once read called "The Pre-Med as a Metaphor for Antipathy", which resonated with me. You too, maybe. MastCell Talk 20:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
From someone who volunteered as an EMT during his college years, every single time one of my pre-med college peers finished their EMT training, they were scared of blood. I never quite understood this - bleeding (and cervical stabalization, CPR and transport) was all EMT-Basic's were really able to do. 50% of the job was looking at a LOT of blood and saying "Well, that's LOOKS like a lot of blood, but it's not a WHOLE LOT of blood, so relax." I appreciate the doctors I have now, but I make sure that my doctors are all old enough to have forgotten all organic chemistry. Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I replied on my talk page, but at more length at Talk:The Gore Effect#What WP:RS means and does not mean. Please reply there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'll let people who typically agree with you dissuade you from the notion that we can use blogs as long as we just put what they say in quotes. Or they won't, and you'll revert war your blogsourced stuff back in, in which case I'll just put more blogsourced stuff in. Hipocrite (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Read WP:RS. I did. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of people who have claimed to be Jesus

I have nominated List of people who have claimed to be Jesus, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have claimed to be Jesus (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Gore Effect" in Al Gore and the environment

Hi Hipocrite. I just noticed you re-cast the summary sentence (diff) to remove "ironically" and defuse "coincidence". I assume you are trying to avoid emotionally loading the summary and of course I've no problem with that. However in the interests of keeping the summary scrupulously neutral I suggest we avoid mentioning "detractors" because (i) we don't actually have a source for who originally applied the term to the effect, (ii) not everyone who uses the term nowadays is a skeptic, and (iii) the summary needs to stay stable because it has become part of the AfD discussion. So I hope you can put up with my update, which reads: Gore's global warming presentations in several major cities have been associated with exceptionally severe cold weather, a juxtaposition since dubbed "the Gore Effect." This avoids "ironically" and "coincidence" and is about as vanilla as I can imagine! Cheers - Pointillist (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gentle warning

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, Hipocrite. I have no desire to file a RFE against you so please assume good faith when I say that this is intended as just a gentle warning. You appear to have violated 3RR on The Gore Effect today. You reverted the same content 3 times, plus a 4th revert:

[4] You revert "which suffered one of the city's coldest days in history" to "on a cold day"

[5] You revert "which suffered one of the city's coldest days in the citys history" to "on a cold day"

[6] You revert "which suffered one of the city's coldest days in history" to "on a cold day in January"

[7] You make a massive revert.

That's 4 reverts in 24 hours on the same article. Please be a little more careful in what you revert.

Although we've had our disagreements in the past, I think that overall, you are an attribute to Wikipedia on climate change articles and I have no desire that you be sanctioned in any way. I'm just asking that you try a little harder to discuss things a little more on the article talk pages before reverting. Wikipedia is a collaborative process and occasionally we have to tolerate edits that we don't agree with simply for the sake of the continuing the collaborative process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first diff isn't a revert. Have you told the Scibaby sckpuppet anything? How about mark blogsourcer? Of course not. Hipocrite (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, you are not assuming good faith as required by Wikipedia policy. Second, your first revert is obviously a revert.[8] You can check this yourself by clicking on the previous link. Third, I will take the higher road. Yes, I've warned MK about his use of op0inion pieces for statements of fact. Yes, we entered into an extended discussion on his talk page as well as the article talk page. No, I'm not aware of entering any discussion with scibaby sockpuppets. So please be more specific. More to the point, you violated 3RR, I gave you an out, and apparently you're are unrepentant. Please explain why Wikipedia editors who unrepentantly violate both 3RR and WP:AGF should be excused? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You have now linked to the first diff to demonstrate what the first diff is reverting. The first diff is an edit, not a revert. To the rest of your accusations? Hipocrite (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth ...

Please see the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Gore_Effect&diff=367698053&oldid=367697393

--Rush's Algore (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cooperation, collaboration, and compromise

[9] Why didn't you change the sentence to wording that you liked better rather than just removing it? I think the former action would have been more helpful in building the article's content, which should be our goal so we can get it to Good Article and perhaps, someday, even to Featured Article. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Every attempt I made to add content to that article was reverted. I stopped trying. Hipocrite (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Further, why are you fabricating what sources say? You included the word "unseasonable," which was not in the source, and that Gore was in Peru, which was not in the source? Hipocrite (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The source doesn't say that he wasn't there and a cold snap in May is unseasonable. So, again, if you disagreed with my summary of what the source was saying, why didn't you just change it to what you felt was more accurate? Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The source also doesn't say that Jesus Christ failed to appear at the conference. Does that mean we can insert that information into the article? What leads you to believe a coldsnap in Lima, Peru in May is unseasonable? Is a coldsnap in August in Lima Peru unseasonable? Hipocrite (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
And, like I said before, every attempt I made to edit or add content to that article was reverted, so I stopped trying. Hipocrite (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

f**********

I took a few days out and find you accusing me of ignoring a sock [10]!!!! You do know I have edited CC articles and am effecitively not an admin. :). Polargeo (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the socky evidence? You must realise you have been a little over the top lately. Polargeo (talk)
Like I said - I'm done putting in the time, so you're responsible for every obvious sockpuppet I decline to spend hours researchung. If anyone is "over the top," it's you. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Fucking hell. I must be insane if you are calling me over the top. I promise to be a little more sensible. But seriously I would be interested in your summary of said sock man. Polargeo (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

National-Anarchism

Hello Hipocrite. Since I will try my best to collaborate with Ottre to avoid an edit war, can you please unblock the National-Anarchism article right away so I can continue improving the article on related to the dispute between him and me? --Loremaster (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to all that is good an pure, I'm not, nor am I likley to be, an adminstrator, so I can't, sorry. If you can mutually promise not to edit war (or perhaps if you pledge not to revert his changes, regardless of how terrible you think they are) make a request at WP:RFPP. Or just propose changes on talk, get consensus, and use {{editprotected}} to have them made on the article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see... --Loremaster (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is it your position that you do not engage in sockpuppetry? That you have never sockpuppeted? That a checkuser of yourself would not reveal suspicious activity (e.g. editing from open proxies)? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no, yes. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

edit request

I don't support this write at all. Please revert it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have self reverted. Please justify your request on the article talk page. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Previous accounts?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hipocrite, I've seen you allude to previous accounts, but I see no specifics on your page. Can you please list them? Thanks. ATren (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, the account you are asking about includes my real name, so no. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Further, any functionary except Lar who has interest in my alternate accounts should feel free to email me and I will happily provide an accounting. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
That sort of answer reminds me of a few climatologists. You wouldn't happen to be someone I'd know about would you? From Real Climate and/or CRU perhaps? You can email me if you like. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, nm, I figured it out, it wasn't that hard and not really that surprising considering some of the sources WMC has used for BLP violations. I bet ArbCom would be really interested in your and WMC's past collaborations in this regard. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hipocrite, how many alternate accounts have you had/operated in Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Lots. I was blocked for it once. Do your reasearch. I have one active other account, it is fully disclosed and it is not relevent to these proceedings. Further, do not return to my talk page - you are prohibited from further postings here. Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
TGL and Cla68, what are you trying to prove with all this? If you have evidence of impropriety please come forward with it. Otherwise, the veiled threats and insinuations have no place here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
They are attempting to harass me, obviously. While I was about to hang up my spurs, I've reconsidered, given this. Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"When the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers..." TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Do not return to my talk page - you are prohibited from further postings here. Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


(edit conflict)IIRC, Hipocrite once said that he had history of sock puppetry. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
And...? Alternate accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are used in accordance with policy. Hounding people through insinuations of wrongdoing are not OK. And if TGL is correct in his assumptions, I think we have an WP:OUTing problem here. Guettarda (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You think that was outing? For crying out loud, you act like I'm wikipedia's own Cuccinelli, and I find the accusation that we are "hounding" hipocrite to be rather hypocritical considering the huge number of people he has accused of sockpuppetry over the years. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect

I note that you have elected to substantively edit [11] the introduction to the article independent of any discussion in talk. As I understand by your edit summary ("If we can't split the articles, the other uses need notes"), your edit is intended to demonstrate, in your opinion, consequence to the lede that should be mandated by a consensus rejection of a second and separate treatment (such as your suggested "Gore Effect (Public Policy)"). Please consider self-reverting your edit after consideration of the following...

1. Even were the creation of an alternate article to be rejected (and that question is, IMHO, far from resolution), you should reasonably anticipate that your edit is far from what might be considered consensus acceptable. Given that reality, why have you apparently opted for "drive-by" editing and attendant implications that will, most probably, both inhibit and actually work against a consensus-driven approach to this article's composition?

2. As you are aware (and have participated in), I have attempted to foster that approach with a sentence by sentence discussion prior to any editing of the article introduction itself. Do you think "drive-by" editing will work as effectively or to be the more acceptable Wikipedia norm?

Please consider self-reverting your edit and...

1. Allow the discussion on an alternate treatment to come to resolution before creating unnecessary rancor with what ultimately may be be unnecessary and incendiary undiscussed edits.

2. Utilize the talk environment...which is even more important to an orderly composition of a "controversial" topic.

I appreciate your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm done playing pattycake with editors whose goal is to win content disputes by being extreme. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Further, if you'd like to discuss the edit, feel free to discuss away. I'll participate, as I have, in any discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ATren swings and misses

Question on two year old indiscressions resolved. ATren banned from this page. Lar complains about prior statement which advised him to up his game.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hipocrite, I've sent you an email. ATren (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And I ignored it. I don't trust you, so sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Then if you aren't going to respond directly with your previous accounts (something which you've frequently demanded of others, BTW), please disclose all non-identifying info about your alternate accounts here, including:
  1. How many alternate accounts were there?
  2. Did you ever use those accounts in violation of WP:SOCK?
  3. Were you ever sanctioned for the use of socks?
  4. Was there overlap in editing articles or topic areas amongst your socks? In particular, did you edit climate change articles with your socks?
  5. Did your sock accounts have any interaction or conflict with any of the editors involved in the current CC dispute?
  6. To whom have you revealed your past socking behavior, so that they may verify your responses here?
These are all reasonable questions which are relevant to the current case and which do not reveal your identity. You yourself have admitted using socks and you've indicated that you've disclosed such information, so this is not fishing. ATren (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Lots, yes, yes, no, no, it was fully revealed on WP:ANI, but both Lar and Allison were fully involved. Now, you are barred from my talk page - never post here again. Hipocrite (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Please email or make available more detailed answers to the above questions. If you don't care to email me directly, find someone to relay for you, as those answers are not satisfactory, they do not provide enough context to allow researching the particulars. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
User:PouponOnToast. Feel better now, Lar? Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
And [12] where I was, I believe, restricted to one account - this one. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"Feel better now?" Well, I'm happy that you answered in enough detail for me to remember, yes. Thanks. Although not so much at the tone I possibly detect under the words. ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Given that the questions were unnecessary harassment to begin with, I find Hipocrite's tone downright friendly. It's not his job to remember what you have forgotten, and it's not your job to support ATren's witch hunt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Your tone is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've kind of given up on being helpful to you. I hope it was helpful for others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Lar, don't snipe on my talk page. Up your game. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
All Lar did was take ATren seriously. It's ATren who created this air of conspiracy, pretending that publicly available info was somehow secret. Surely Lar won't be that gullible in the future. Guettarda (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
ATren's questions were reasonable, in my view. Your tone is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Wait, that is what all this is about? thought they were asking about alternative accounts that hadn't been revealed, or that were only accessible on deleted pages. If only there was some way to look through pages on Wikipedia without, you know, having to read every single archive of ANI, aloud, while standing on your head and juggling. It's totally unreasonable of you, Hip, to expect people to look things up for themselves! Totally unreasonable! Guettarda (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've run a lot of sock investigations over the years. Any given sock has rather less meaning to me than it does to the sockmaster. Asking for a reminder of the socks involved is not at all unreasonable. Whatever you might think. Your tone is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I will answer no more questions on this topic. This discussion is closed. If ATren edits this page again, I will seek that he be restricted from doing so. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that reminding people their tone is not helpful isn't actually sniping. I request that you change your reply and closing summary to remove the swipes at me, after which feel free to remove this comment if you wish. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You should probably just take a hint from what I did to avoid an inhospitable usertalk page, where the owner took swipes at me - in his case, in section headers - take it off your watchlist. Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Hipocrite/GWCC

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. mark nutley (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion of this attack page, if i have used the incorrect tag sorry mark nutley (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Mark, your the request is nonsense. It's been declined twice now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
How was it declined twice when i just put it up once? And now i have mfd`d it [13] mark nutley (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I, apparently mistakenly, assumed the IP was you, too. Fixed above. And the MfD is nonsense, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently my evidenciary draft is so damning that it needs to be deleted. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it was speedy kept. Sorry I didn't spot this in time to opine there but there was never really a doubt. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hipocrite/GWCC. I thought that at worst your evidence drafting could be moved to a case subpage. Certainly, you should have reasonable time to draft it. Certainly, it should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

This message has been sent to inform you about a discussion at WP:ANI. The thread is WP:ANI#Request for community ban of Darkstar1st. Thank you. TFD (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what you think

Stay off my talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

KK. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. -Atmoz (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for climing off the german building! No hard feelings. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

I'm dubious about point 3 To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding. because it is misinterpretable, and arguably not related to the previous. I'm sure we all want to edit in accord with policy, but this has little to do with socking William M. Connolley (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that advocacy concerning external controversy comes from one side. Do you see wikipedia editors directed here by the non-existant external pressure groups advocating for accuracy? Hipocrite (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with you but have no confidence that the "uninvolved" admins are able to correctly evaluate this - see RFE passim and the arbcomm page if you doubt that William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see Adapted from Mantanmoreland - the idea being that gloves can come off with respect to these transparent socks - however, your remedies are not restricted to socks. The gloves are off for everyone William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm well able to defend myself from the charge that I cam here to advocate about an external controversy - why would I have all of those edits to articles unrelated to that controversy? On the other hand, Thegoodlocust would have no such defence. Hipocrite (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change RFAR

Can I call this ClimateGate ;-) Just wanted to let you know I've posted my views on your questions on the arbwiki and asked Risker and NYB to chime in. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley and blogs

It's clear that he's going to continue using blogs until he finally gets banned from Wikipedia (which can't happen a moment too soon, IMO). I hope you're keeping diffs of his repeated violations of WP:V to use in the CC arbitration case. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm running out of evidentiarry steam. It's too much, all at once. I'm waiting for the arbs to do something to see where I need to focus. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Blogs are absolutely reliable for the opinions of their authors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
And those opinions should not be included on any page. Insert WMCs blog comment on "Hide the Decline," and I'll consider your statements. Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Is his blog notable then? mark nutley (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Does it matter? The author is notable, and the authors opinion is reliably sourced to the blog. The blog doesn't need to be notable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Enough, both of you - the principle is clear (point 2 of WP:SELFPUB), and it rules out using either WMC or Watts' blogs for this purpose. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The blog's author is notable because it's related to theClimategate scandal. So, it's not just some guy on the Internet. But I haven't checked the blog mentioned by WMC yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'll wait. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC`s blog post is an off wiki attempt to sway the AFD, he links to it in his post and says he hopes it will be deleted. Is`nt that against the rules? mark nutley (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
No. Further, you didn't have a problem with it when GoRight and TheGoodLocust were doing it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Erm when did they do it? Why do you assume i know about it? mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, mark, sure. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
According to Cla68, views expressed outside Wikipedia cannot be taken into account on-Wiki. If you disagree, then presumably you believe that the canvassing on WUWT by Alex Harvey and others should be sanctioned as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hide the Decline versus 9/11 conspiracy theories

In relation to your comment here[14], I believe that you are mistaken. I don't think that I've argued that a blog isn't a reliable source for the opinions of its authors at our 9/11 conspiracy theories article. My positions are more nuanced than that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You've opposed blog-sourced nonsence in the area where blogsourced nonsence is contrary to your pov. In the other area, where blogsourced nonsence is on your side, you're all for it. Your position is very, very nunanced. Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The edit summary by you betrays a lack of understanding of policy, while the one by AQFK is consistent with policy. Yet instead of apologizing, you add a scurrilous charge without evidence. Please reconsider.--SPhilbrickT 15:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
As soon as a generally respected editor with 1+ years of tenure and no entrenched position on climate change agrees with you, I'll consider. Until than, I'm going to have to respectfully decline. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey buddy, here I am! No entrenched position on climate change here! And I agree with Sphilbrick. What more do you want?! And while your at it, quit with the personal attacks, please. And I'm waiting for you to substantiate your cryptic comment about blogs over on the evidence talk page. Kinda extra tetchy today, aren'cha? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want people to "quit with the personal attacks," expressing yourself in jibes like "Kinda extra tetchy today, aren'cha?" may not be the best way to achieve your goal. Again, model the behavior you hope to promote. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
So sorry. Been a long day. More than the usual number of personal attacks received. I'm still waiting for that explanation, Hipocrite! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You have an entrenched position on climate change. I don't feel like discussing this any more, please stop. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You missed the point. I'm not arguing policy—the policy is a close call. My point is that you aren't arguing policy—you are hurling insults, which border on personal attacks, without a whit of evidence. The policy issue—exactly when, and under what circumstances blogs can be sourced is an interesting policy discussion. I'll not engage in it with someone who is more interested in partisan wrangling than honest discussion.--SPhilbrickT 17:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
How interesting. It's terrible that someone is "more interested in partisan wrangling than honest discussion." Just terrible, that things "border[ing] on personal attacks" are being posted, on this very talk page! Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm glad policy has changed so recently. I mean, at 15:28 I "betray[ed] a lack of understanding of policy," but now "the policy is a close call." Phew! Hipocrite (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any recent change in policy, nor how you imputed that assumption. Your edit summary " Blogs are not reliable sources" is proof you are not familiar with policy. That's not inconsistent with the possibility that this specific edit may or may not be acceptable. To use an analogy, if you reverted an edit made by the subject of a bio with the edit summary "subjects of bios are not permitted to edit their own bio", that would be evidence you misunderstood policy, even though the edit in question might be problematic.--SPhilbrickT 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge assigns work

But dosen't pay my consulting fee
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hipocrite, can you please provide a diff where I've made an argument at 9/11 conspiracy theories that is contrary to my position at Hide the Decline? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

14:20, 25 February 2009. 13:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC). That's just from the first article of yours I cared to review. Apparently Global Warming Truthers are reliable for their own opinions, but 9-11 Truthers are not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Huh? You didn't provide a diff. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Go back in your edit history to those periods and you can pull out the diffs. I don't feel like discussing anything with you anymore - please stop. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You're the one making accusations against me. It's your job to provide evidence, not mine. Even if the burden of proof was on me, I can't disprove a negative. Either post your evidence or stop making accusations against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence section

Your evidence section is about 300 words over the limit. It's not a huge deal, since I'm enforcing the limits flexibly as requested, but I did notice that a fair amount of your section is more argument than evidence. I'm not asking you to shorten it (although if you did I wouldn't mind) but I'd ask you not to add any more without removing some. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I will ensure that my evidence section is not the longest. I see no reason why I should not be permitted to add when there is other evidence that is over 3 times my length. Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
"Not the longest" seems like a fair way of deciding who should be bothered first William M. Connolley (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You could easily trim a lot of words from your evidence without much loss. Let me know if you I can help. Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do. If you were to propose an edit in my or your user space I'd impliment it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a shot at it later on. Guettarda (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-revert?

Too many SPAs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey Hipocrite, This combined with this breaks the 1rr restriction set on that page. Also, just to give you a sense of how the addition comes across on its own merit: it's at least very controversial to use Newsweek's blog as a reliable source and your use of it is pretty contentious. Can you self-revert and bring it to the talk?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Feel free to discuss on talk. Further, you are banned from this page. Hipocrite (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, per your edit statement in the second diff please self-revert. --Rush's Algore (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

TGL?

I notice you've put up two editors for topic bans. Would you add TGL to the list? There is plenty of ammo - the existing 6 month ban, stuff like [15], etc. I'll do it myself if you don't care to, but it would be neater to add to your list William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I choose not to, as the 6 month topic ban has made it impossible for anyone to gather evidence of recent wrongdoing, though it's pretty obvious when his topic ban runs out further action might be needed. Hipocrite (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeees... that is a point. OK, I think I'll wait a while and see how things pan out William M. Connolley (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Response on R&I evidence

Hipocrite: You flatter yourself to think that I would bother to Wikistalk you! But, first: 1) How would I even go about that? Is there some easy way to follow someone else's contributions to Wikipedia? 2) Aren't you (among other editors) always accusing me of being a SPA and suggesting that we work on other sorts of articles? Anyway, I was trying to learn more about the Arbitration process and so was reading some of the material about the open case on Global Warming. This afd was referenced there. Side note: I am pleased to see that you are consistent in wanting to remove information that you disagree with from Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. David.Kane (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for working with me to help resolve this dispute. I know that we've had our differences, but I appreciate your efforts. BTW, I am satisfied with your explanation about the Newsweek blog being under their editorial control and will post something shortly to that article's talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipocrite/06/2010&oldid=1144608779"