Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

For some strange reason, this was set to #Redirect Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard - I think as a result of a page move. I don't see why its a useful redirect - discussion of the recent Deuterium/Nescott problem should have been here. So I'm restoring it William M. Connolley 12:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

All the talk pages of noticeboard subpages redirect to the main noticeboard talk page. That probably makes sense for AN and ANI but not here. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Report example

This had it's own heading previously which made it easy to start a new report. Was this removed by someone intentionally to faciliate reporting in some way? (→Netscott) 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I've noticed that this page often becomes excessively long (probably very difficult to load for those on dial-up). I'd propose that we agressively archive all reports with an administrative response. Any comments? alphaChimp^(talk) 08:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Perhaps we could get that Werdnabot onto it? William M. Connolley 07:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure werdnabot would work, given that we use subtitles instead of titles. alphaChimp^(talk) 18:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

...for suitable values of "aggressive". I suggest leaving handled cases up for a day or two, so that people can easily find out what happend, and to allow for a reasonable discussion perid. --Stephan Schulz 08:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this really is an appropriate venue for "discussion". The scope of comments (IMHO) should be specifically limited to whether or not the user in question violated 3RR and the details of that violation. All too often this page deteriorates into accusations of vandalism and direct personal attacks.

That said, I'd agree that reports should remain up for about a day or so, at least long enough for them to be viewed by the reported party. alphaChimp^(talk) 18:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I just put Werdnabot on it. Let's see how this goes. I've set it to archive sections older than 3 days. Alphachimp 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nothing happened. I've left a request on Voice of All's talk page to see if he's interested in getting VoABot involved. Alphachimp 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we just don't archive at all and run it like the similar noticeboards, like RFI and PAIN. It is much easier to see what needs to be done if every item on the page is something that needs to be acted upon, and to simply remove any that have been acted upon. —Centrx→talk • 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No idea what happened

This process is not very intuitive. I have no idea why, when I followed the directions, my report did not appear on the main wiki project page, yet it appears in the current history? This is all quite confusing Ernham 19:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the above. Mark83 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not archiving

I put this above but maybe a new section will get some attention. How about we do not archive this page, and deal with it in the manner of WP:PAIN and WP:RFI, deleting entries after a short period of time when they are complete. This is simpler to see what issues need resolving, and wastes no time picking through entries to archive them. There is little need to keep this information, if anyone searches through it anyway; problem users have a record of being blocked or a warning on their talk page. —Centrx→talk • 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

or WP:RFPP.... 3RR Reports could be used as evidence in arbcom proceedings. That's my only real concern. Alphachimp 16:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why one of the archive bots can't take care of archiving this for us. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

please, where can I receive advice on this dispute?:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Ford%2C_Jr.&diff=83580851&oldid=83577898 >.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 12:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, can you do something about your signature, which is weird (above); and maybe play in the sandbox a bit. Second, I don't see much on the article talk page, which is the first place to go William M. Connolley 12:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Following talk page guidelines?

Quick question concerning the usage of talk pages for general conversations. Due to a big racial controversy involving Michael Richards his article's talk page has been subject to a heavy amount of non-editorial postings. Per talk page guideline #2 "keep on topic" I have been diligently removing these non-editorial conversations and warning users (mostly anon IP editors) against using the talk page for general conversations. I hadn't truly considered it but I suppose in a sense these removals could be considered reverts. Based upon the fact that I was following guidelines in removing these off topic non-editorial postings should I be wary of 3RR? In my mind off topic conversations are equivalent to vandalism. Am I wrong? (→Netscott) 02:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd be cautious if I were you William M. Connolley 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What to do in this case

When an IP and a User are the same, and plays out 3RR by simply not logging in? Thanks for the answers (and yeah, I know, this should be askes somewhere else, but where?) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 15:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

212.200.175.214 (talk · contribs) & PANONIAN (talk · contribs) see contribs. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 15:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Typically it is pretty obvious and the user can be blocked. Other options are to semi-protect the page against edit-warring IPs, or to request a checkuser. —Centrx→talk • 11:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Question...

Tasc is doing a lot of reverts to restore a prod. Is that 3RR? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so, and I'd put it up for AfD if the prod keeps getting removed. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

an automated system?

Reports are very time-consuming to fill out. Going back and forth from page history and noticeboard, copying all the diff urls as well as timestamps (that's a minimum of five diffs and five timestamps, back and forth makes that a minimum of twenty page switches). It would be more than awesome to have some kind of automated system that helps the user fill out a report. — coelacan talk — 00:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Welsh Nationalism revert war

Hello, I have never posted here, so bear with me. On this page, a disagreement towards the subject matter has caused a war with important information being added, then removed. I have done a 3RR as the other party has themselves caused 3RR removing content, but wish further assistance moderating the differences here. Thank you, Drachenfyre 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis is still reverting

Please see [NCAHF]. He continues to insult, ignores consensus and reverts at will. Nobody can stop him. If I revert again, I will be blocked. Will someone tell me please why he is allowed to be so abusive and revert to WP:OWN despite every single editor disagreeing with him?Jance 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC) If I revert, I will be blocked. What can be done? Or are some WIkipedians simply allowed to continue abusing others, insulting, reverting despite 100% consensus, etc? I don't know what else to do. This editor is a menace.

He has had one warning, which was removed, by Ronz, I think out of an attempt to be conciliatory. Nobody will stop Curtis. Not one admin is talking to him about his abusiveness, continued reverts and WP:OWN. This is pathetic. Jance 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Case delay?

Just wondering if there's any reason why this report [1] isn't being dealt with? It's my first time to report someone so if I haven't followed proper procedure or have done something wrong, please let me know. Bastun 09:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No specially good reason; these things sometimes get lost in the murk. Asking here is a good way to remind us. 8h William M. Connolley 10:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A mere suggestion for an improvement

I'd like to make a suggestion - wouldn't it be better if the skeleton under Sample violation report to copy is slightly changed - like this: the User:PaxEquilibrium bit changed to User:USERNAME_REPORTER. I know this isn't a big change and all, but just aesthetics - however, it is some sort of an improvement for the eyes.

Cheers and happy (a bit late though) New Year, folks!!! Let me know about t'is one. --PaxEquilibrium 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note

I changed the default heading to this:

===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result:)===

Previously it said "USERNAME_VIOLATION" could create confusion, as it would appear to refer to Wikipedia:Username policy. I replaced the three tildes with "YOUR_NAME", agreeing with Pax's comment above, and because everybody seems to ignore the "If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually" directive anyway. Finally, I removed this comment:

<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

Because it's no longer necessary. The use of parser functions in templates such as {{article}} makes this a matter of preference. In fact using spaces would be better for longer titles because most web browsers do not wrap-around on an underscore. — CharlotteWebb 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I was wondering if we should switch this forum to a format similar to that used for WP:SOCK, in which an evidence page is opened for a particular user. That way, if a user commits repeated violations, it's easy to see if he's done it before and the previous evidence page can be expanded (and escalating punishments applied). It would also make it possible to put a watch on one particular 3RR case, instead of watching the page as a whole. Using templates for reports and notifications would also make the process easier. Just an idea... RJASE1 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BMT

Sorry I didnt realise he had lodged a complaint. I looked at it and thought BMT had removed my comments. I did not intend on removing BMT's complaint against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditor20 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about if your 3rr report gets ignored by admins for over 2 days you get a free "get out of 3RR" card for future use? Catchpole 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR after warning

User 3RR'd both before and after 3RR warning—what happens next? (Seven reverts reported; user warned; three additional reverts added to report.) — Athænara ✉ 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rameses reported

Can I ask someone to look over my report of Rameses, please? William M. Connolley 20:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How is a result "no violation" if the user is blocked?

User:SlimVirgin declared my 3RR report against User:Isarig "no violation," despite that another administrator just blocked him for gaming the 3RR as a result of my report. Isarig made four verbatim reverts (inserting a lead line accusing CNN of 'liberal bias') within the same 24 hour 46 minute period, for reference. 3RR clearly sanctions blocking for trying to game the policy, and Isarig was blocked, so why has another administrator declared "no violation" on this page? Italiavivi 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's a technicality. The user didn't violate 3RR, but they were blocked for gaming 3RR. It's quite subtle. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No violation? Why?

Then I'll put this up here. Would still like a reply. Sciurinæ 21:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Because "deleted text " == "revert" is way too harsh William M. Connolley 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And how much time needs to have passed since the addition until its deletion is not a revert? Or what do you mean? Sciurinæ 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, were you strict enough, every single delete could be a revert. Unless the deletes are signigifcant in some way, I don't see why they should count William M. Connolley 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree that significant means like "direct connection to the respective edit war"? You see, I mean, wouldn't that apply here? Sciurinæ 21:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeeessss... but in that case you'd have to say exactly why William M. Connolley 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In the first three reverts of Piotrus, the previously eye-catching sentences (they were pretty eye-catching, in fact, hard to overlook see) were made pretty much invisible as references. This was all that was changed. The diff-page is pretty red but the popups-diff-page shows it. Jadger reverted each. Was it really just about format? Jadger at least didn't think that. So Jadger wanted what the sentences were saying in the lead paragraph. Piotrus didn't. What I called the fourth revert didn't remove the sentences from the lead paragraph down as reference - it still removed some of the sentences. Same effect. Jadger wanted the sentences in the lead paragraph. He saw it fit to revert when they were a reference at the bottom of the page in small letters. And of course he saw it fit to revert when the sentences were even lost[2]. Directly relevant to the edit war. So it can be interpreted as four reverts, don't you think? Sciurinæ 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No progress since fix

I reported [problem] and received speedy feedback but haven't heard anything new since I fixed the problems... any help would be appreciated. Iansmcl 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shell

It says that there's a prototype "skeleton" for filing new appeals at the bottom of the talk page - there isn't. --PaxEquilibrium 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Text William Connolley deleted from "3RR: William M. Connolley, reported by Zeeboid"

This is the text deleted from Admin noticeboard 3RR: William M. Connolley, reported by User:zeeboid by William M. Connolley

I apologize in advance for the length of this, but for far too long has William been able to dance on the line of violation while allowing people's lack of knowledge of his own history give him pass after pass when he is called to task. This submission is actually abbreviated as I did not include scores of additional supporting documentation and justification.

Normally an objective person would conclude that the edits (as numbered above) #3 & #4 should be excluded leaving only #1, #2 and #5. (Note: Edit #5 should remain instead of #3 since it included an additional edit.) But consider a few other things and then decide if the case that there was absolute "good faith" in the edits is irrefutable, beyond a shadow or hint of doubt, as it were. That complete "good faith" is required to assume the self-revert and the undoing of the self-revert should be discounted.

The discussion is about if one or two of those reverts by an administrator in a revert war within a 12-hour span should not be counted because he self-rv and then self-rv-the-self-rv. The discussion should be about an administrator with a long history of participating in revert wars (to the point of being on parole previously) engaged in yet another revert war and using the defense of "self-reverting does not count". Obviously there is no defense in the discussion that SHOULD be discussed. For that reason those of you reading this complaint are being led to the false focus of considering ignoring 2 reverts so an admin can be relieved from sanction for violating WP:3RR. Since this defense has worked well in the past for the accussed I feel compelled to add to the discussion on these specific 5 edits which should show any reasonable and objective person why these 5 edits all constitute a violation of WP:3RR by William M. Connolley, an administrator that should know better...and espcially in light of the fact that his first RfA failed to earn a consensus with a large portion of the oppossing votes citing POV issues and being on parole for revert issues. In other words, he is fully aware of the reverting issue and has a long established pattern for being a participant in them.

I. THE REVERTS BASED ON TIMES

Look at the Times and summaries of the reverts.

1. 09:04 (rv the PS bit; also rm the audit bit - this is archiving, which is different.)
2. 14:47 (rv to WMC - the PS bit is wrong)
3. 16:03 (rv to WMC, as per talk)
4. 16:10 m (self-rv: the PS bit is stupid but needs to be talked out rather than revert-warred out)
5. 21:44 m (rv to WMC, as per further talk)

Consider that we are not talking about a 24-hour period. We are actually discussing a 12 2/3 hour period for five reverts.

The #4 edit said the purpose of the self-rv was to "talk out" the differences. William M. Connolley gave 5 hours and 34 minutes to "talk out" the issues before "rv...per further talk" with edit #5. Is 5 1/2 hours really long enough to claim a good faith effort to allow discussion? That is up to everyone else to decide I guess, but that amount of time does not let anyone even finish a work shift and be able to participate in the discussion.

Given Connolley's vast experience within Wikipedia there is no excuse for allowing only 5 1/2 hours for discussion before engaging in reverts. The only logical motivations for leaving such a short period of time for discussion is (a) believing 5 1/2 hours was sufficient, (b) performing the self-rv as a facade to circumvent WP:3RR, (c) giving the appearance of working with others for harmony in response to being asked for an explanation of revert #3 on the talk page ("please explain yourself and also please see Wikipedia's rules on Reversions Help:Reverting") Talk:Scientific_data_archiving&diff=117054988&oldid=117050443

Admittedly items (b) and (c) are not assuming good faith. Given the history (and Wikipedia's own caveat to WP:AGF, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.") it should be stated clearly that the 'well of Good Faith waters' is tapped dry and considering the possibility of bad faith is not a violation of any Wiki policy or guideline at this point.

So, is it really reasonable to believe that any experienced editor would believe that such a time frame is acceptable when 5 days is the norm for things like Articles for deletion? I think not. That leaves only (b) and (c) as reasonable, objective and logical conclusions for WMC's actions.

Therefore, in looking at just the times and the administrator's experience we should be able to conclude that all of the reverts should be counted AND severe sanctions should be sought.

II. THE EDITS CONSIDERING THE TALK PAGE

Look at the summaries given for each of the edits.

1. (rv the PS bit; also rm the audit bit - this is archiving, which is different.)
2. (rv to WMC - the PS bit is wrong)
3. (rv to WMC, as per talk)
4. m (self-rv: the PS bit is stupid but needs to be talked out rather than revert-warred out)
5. m (rv to WMC, as per further talk)

Notice the recurring thing, "PS bit is stupid/wrong". That is telling us the problems are regarding PS (Pseudo-science). Now look at the discussion page edits in this time frame Talk:Scientific_data_archiving&diff=117133125&oldid=116990836. The discussion between the time of edits #1 and #5 are, in summary, is a discussion between RonCram (4 edits), William M. Connolley (4), Raymond arritt (2), Zeeboid (6), myself (3), Stephan Schulz (4) and SteveWolfer (1). Total of 23 edits taking place with over 90% of those within a 5-hour span. Reading those edits one can hardly find any consensus being attempted or even reached on the issue of Pseudoscience.

That leaves some doubt regarding the motivation for rv #4 & #5 based only on the fact that there was very little, if any, support in the talk pages that would make the summaries of his edits honest.

III. THE WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON REVERTS

Why are reverts being done simply because the text is "wrong" or "stupid"? Those reverts are clear violations of Wikipedia's Revert policies.

When to revert according to policy is clearly laid out. Reverting is "primarily for fighting vandalism", not if one feels "the edit is unsatisfactory". The policy also clearly states to "not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute." Remember the summaries explaining the reverts because the prior edits were "wrong" and "stupid"? How does that rest with the following from the revert policy: "Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." Additionally, the policy state "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate." Finally the policy states, "Do not revert good faith edits...a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary." (emphasis added). The "firm, substantive, and objective proof" provided on the talk page 3 minutes after revert #5 is "This section appears to be in for attack reasons and is totally unbalanced. I've removed it. It needs a proper re-write before it goes back, not just a POV tag."

The reverts, each one of them on their own, are violations and should not have occurred in the first place. That a discussion about if all 5 should be counted or if 2 of them should be ignored is laughable when stood up to the "Do's and Dont's" explicitly laid out at WP:Revert.

Keep in mine a few other important quotes from WP:3RR. "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day...Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.", "The rule does not...endorse reverting as an editing technique" and "This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system." It is easily demonstrable how William engages in such reverting persistence (and typically another person will continue the reverts after William makes his 3rd, but that is an issue to be brought forward at a later date).

So even if it is erroneously decided that 2 reverts should not be counted it does not mean William cannot face sanctions. In fact another important quote from WP:3RR is, "administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours." William HAS been sanctioned before, yet for some reason in the past he is given leniency. The pattern of leniency is encouraging destructive behavior and the leniency should be ended and reversed.

IV. CONCLUSION

Normally an objective person would conclude that reverts #3 & #4 should be excluded from being counted against the WP:3RR. But there are just too many aggrevating factors surrounding these 5 reverts, the corresponding Talk Page and the summaries given in the reverts. On top of that are more aggrevating factors outside of the 12 hour timeframe in question that are tied to the reverter, administrator William M. Connolley that have been given excuse with each subsequent issue.

1. William's experience and position in Wikipedia remove credibility to any claim that leaving 5 1/2 hours for "talking out differences" was reasonable or in good-faith.

2. A review (quick or thorough) leaves no doubt there was no consensus formed or hinted at on the Talk page within the 5 1/2 hour timeframe William provides for "talking out differences".

3. An honest review of even a portion of William's history will reveal a pattern of engaging in revert wars. Recently the trend is to find any rationalizations to give William a loophole to escape any repercussions. An honest review of these patterns will leave no rational conclusions of the reverts being beyond any shadow of doubt in Good Faith.

4. Each Revert was a violation of Wikipedia's policies.

5. William is an administrator that had to be nominated twice because of concerns around his demonstrated participation in edit wars, revert wars, POV issues and other harmful activities which rule out any automatic assumption of good faith in any edit.

Each revert is improper and the behavior must be halted. It is not being halted on William's own initiative and so other actions are necessary for the well-being and credibility of Wikipedia. There is no reasonable justification for excluding reverts #3 and #4 and therefore William has violated WP:3RR. William's history of engaging in edit/revert wars should be absolutely unacceptable for any editor and less tolerated by an administrator; William's history of attempting to dance at the threshhold of violation of WP:3RR is even more reason for severe sanction on this instance, consideration of long-term sanction as a user, permanent revocation of adminstrator roles and permanent disqualification from any role in the future other than editor.

If the supporting documentation presented here is not enough more is readily available.

Right. William is one of our more experienced admins. Tony is a talk radio host who maintains an off-wiki attack site. He operates his account very nearly as a single purpose account, and obviously is just informed enough about Wikipedia to try Wiki-lawyering, but not to understand our culture and aims. I am certain you can draw your own conclusions.--Stephan Schulz 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the 3RR is to prevent edit-warring. Its enforcement is not meant, as Tony is using it, to be an end in itself, nor are editors encouraged to spend as much time rebutting a 3RR no-violation ruling as it would have taken them to edit several articles. Newyorkbrad 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose of the 3RR is to prevent in Edit-Warring, which this Admin has many issues with in the past. William should know better, yet does this anyway. Three Strikes Rule anyone? Also, Tony is a Radio show host. I am an Electronic Medical Record Training Consultant. User:William_M._Connolley is a Climate modeller and based on his own user profile, an Environmental Activist, who's personal opinions have a heavy BIAS on the topics he alters in the Environmental areas. Stephan Schulz's inability to compare Tony's Profession with User:William_M._Connolley's profession is also an attempt to skew this away from another example of why this Admin should not be an Admin.--Zeeboid 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The point User:Newyorkbrad is trying to make is that this is not a venue for discussion about user conduct. That's what WP:RFC/USER is for. -/- Warren 22:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Tony of Race to the Right 01:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Replies added in by --Stephan Schulz 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I take it by your effort to turn the focus onto me and away from the actual issues at hand (Connolley's edits/reverts) that it is conceded Connolley's actions have been indefensible. Otherwise you would have focused on staying on the topic. Step up and be an adult..."very nearly" is a cowards way of making an accusation without having to own up to it, something I would have expected to be beneath you. Either make a charge that my account is as you "very nearly" claim or don't say anything. Providing facts about your friend's history with revert warring is not "Wiki-lawyering". I notice people throw that around when they really have no real defense because someone actually took the effort to make a coherent and solid narrative explaining something that needs rectification. Truly, I expect better from you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my point is that William's actions need no defense, least of all on WP:3RR. WP:3RR is intentionally a simple, mechanical criterion with little wiggle room either way. What you want is an RFC, but instead of doing the work and arguing in an open, hopefully neutral forum, you misuse the 3RR noticboard for your tirades. I wrote "very nearly" as I like precision. For the first 100 edits or so you have edited other fields. Since about mid-February, you have done little but disrupt the global warming related articles and stalking the editors, in particularly William. Is that accusation enough for you? Given your collection of out-of-context edits that apparently somehow try to give the impression of a big conspiray, I find the request for a charge particularly ironic. Your "narrative" is neither coherent nor solid. It is full of misinterpretations, wrong assumptions (for a similar example, see "Stephan, I take it by your effort to turn the focus onto me and away from the actual issues at hand (Connolley's edits/reverts) that it is conceded Connolley's actions have been indefensible."), and tortured logic. It is not worth refuting in detail. Coming up with this crap is fast and easy, doing a solid rebuttal is a lot of work. I have better things to do. I trust the Wikipedia community to recognize your methods and to act accordingly. --Stephan Schulz 09:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The logic is not twisted (except that it points out something very valid--and how dare it not be in lock-step with what you want). Look at the order of events: Complaint made about Subject & 3RR, I post a supporting narrative with some of Subject's history (and, btw, it was not a rebuttal but was meant to be a reply to Zeeboid, but the decision was done so quickly that my submission came afterwards), you charge me with "attack page" and "very nearly SPA", never once addressing the Subject, 3RR or why (I presume) you believe the Subject's history of abuse is not relevant or accurate. Ask ANY scholar of rhetoric, anyone that knows about discourse or communication if the effort to shift the focus from the subject is because of the desire to prevent focus on what is damaging--the primary subject. You will find that nearly all of those people will have the same, as you call, tortured logic. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Warren, if that is what he meant then my apologies. I wish I understood that he meant to direct me there instead at first so I could have gone there right away. Thank you.

Zeeboid, you just reminded me of something I know I read on Wikipedia and do not feel like looking for it again. Somewhere I read that it is preferred that people do not edit in fields they are professionally involved in as the tendencies to engage in POV edits is too strong. So, I understand how Connolley's profession (the person this discussion should be about) MIGHT be relevant. I do not understand how my profession has any relevance...unless the implication is that someone on the radio should be disregarded. Stephan, what exactly is your point? -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts to edit in their field of expertise. Who else should be able to write a good article on any advanced topic? You are probably thinking of WP:COI (and I fully expect you to quote it out of context or to insinuate that "the scientific community" is an organization and hence scientists should refrain from editing scientific topics). --Stephan Schulz 09:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have bet my house that you would act like I was wrong...and I am not going to hunt it down, so we will just say you are right. I also guarantee that if I happen upon it again you would claim I'm misquoting. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time...there is not an effort to find middle ground on content, disputes, etc...it is your way or no way and everyone else is wrong, not even the consideration that other viewpoints are viable. That is what is expected of the long-time editors--hostility to disagreement. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think however, Stephan Schulz, Environmental Activists should not be editing Environmental articles, just as a Microsoft Employee should not be editing a Microsoft article... Conflict of intrest. William for example uses blogs and websites that he edits at for refrences, which itself is a violation of WP:COI, is it not? His own wiki page William M. Connolley is littered with refrences to sites likeRealClimate.org, a link titled The Global Warming Myth, and even a Green Party Activist site Cambs Green where William is listed as: "William is the Green Party South Cambs District electoral agent." Is it too much to say that someone that is a Green Party Electorial Agent who edits Wiki Environmental Articles is a violation of WP:COI?--Zeeboid 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)