User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive17

This page is an archive of talk page comments for the period of June through September 2010.

Please add any new comments to my current talk page at User talk:TenOfAllTrades. Thanks!

---

Thanks for RVV

Hello, Ten. Thank you about the vandalism on my user page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that

[1] - I didn't realize you were responding to Lar; you can remove my comment if you like. ATren (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

ClimateOracle

TOAT, I didn't agree with your block, and I certainly don't agree with you blocking him from his own talk page. Preliminary checkuser did not detect anything, and he has not "grandstanded" on his talk page. He deserves at least the ability to defend himself on his own talk. Please self revert. ATren (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock}} requests have already been denied twice, by two independent administrators. He has demonstrated that he is aware of the correct channels through which to pursue any further appeals (indeed, remarkably aware for someone who is purportedly new to Wikipedia), though I don't expect them to gain any traction. Should any of his appeals be accepted for evaluation, the appropriate bodies are welcome to consider suitable, conditional relaxation of the technical restrictions on his editing. I consider the matter closed, but I would advise you to remember, ATren, that the enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about the unblock per se, it's specifically about your blocking them from their talk page too, which doesn't even give them a chance to respond to queries. There was no sign of disruption on their talk (a few edits over several days, simply defending themselves) and blocking them from their own talk is inappropriate. I am asking you to revert that action so they may correspond on talk while this matter remains unresolved.

Also, I don't consider CO a "friend" in any sense, and in fact, I too suspect he may be hiding something. But suspicion is not proof. This is more about erring on the side of caution when evidence is not clear. (also, FWIW, I don't consider anyone my "enemy" either). ATren (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I consider the matter closed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

arbcom case

There is an arbcom case related to sockpuppetry investigations you were involved in on CC enforcement pages Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That filing appears to deal with WavePart (talk · contribs). My block of ClimateOracle seems to have been mentioned only very tangentially, and WavePart has (properly) not seen fit to identify me as a party to the case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:31, 4 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) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, Ten. Having returned to my own computer, I would like to be able to roll back again. See here for reference. Thank you in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Matter and anti-matter

Hey - I noticed this discussion between yourself and Collect. Collect seems convinced that "Until a few weeks ago everyone 'knew' that the total amont of matter and anti-matter in the universe had to be equal." I saw your lengthy deconstruction of that claim, which got me thinking. I'm not a physicist - in fact, my formal education in the field is limited to high school and one semester of introductory Physics-For-Poets in college, but something about Collect's claim seemed off.

Sure enough, I went back to A Brief History of Time, which is in my library in its original hardcover from >20 years ago. There, Stephen Hawking clearly lays out the excess of matter over anti-matter - that is, he makes clear that the total amounts of matter and anti-matter in the universe were not believed to be equal. And that's in a book aimed a general audience and published more than 20 years ago. Hawking even gets into hypotheses about the imbalance, at least as far as one can explain CP violation in layperson's terms.

Anyhow, I didn't want to clutter the ArbCom page further with off-topic silliness, but I wanted to follow up to confirm that even general-audience books on physics have clearly described an imbalance between matter and anti-matter for at least 20+ years. Obviously, it's not exactly a paradigm shift that occurred "a few weeks ago". I'm going to put this in the most neutral wording possible: I don't find it a productive use of my time to argue with Collect. (And I don't think this discussion has any ongoing relevance to the ArbCom case). But I thought I'd complement your description of scholarly thought in physics with my layperson's view, derived from books like A Brief History. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence. I had rather hoped to avoid getting involved in this arbitration case, but I got sucked in when I saw someone using a jarringly incorrect scientific claim to try to argue against representing scientific consensus views as scientific 'truth' as we know it.

In retrospect, I am concerned that my point will get lost in the side discussion — but I am perhaps more disappointed that Collect decided to both stick to his incorrect statement and to try to change his story when called on it. I agree with you that – based on my exchange, and also on the frankly ridiculous claims of sockpuppetry and secret offwiki coordination – that arguing with him further is likely to be...unconstructive.

Thanks for the heads-up regarding A Brief History; that's an ideal reference for the point that even lay treatments of the subject were well aware of baryon asymmetry. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

Ten, how ya been? Haven't seen ya in a couple months on my watchlist. Thought you had up and took off. How are things in your neck of the woods? Good I hope. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that II

oops. Glad you caught it. I was working against a self imposed deadline so the edits were flying fast and furious. ++Lar: t/c 10:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Evolution and entropy

This and many other fallacious arguments espoused by proponents of creationism (and its dressed-up cousins) are touched on in our article on intelligent design.

I don't know if your intent was to be covertly malicious, but it seemed to me that your response (re-posted above for clarity) was mildly aggressive. The fact that I don't reject evolution is beside the point -- even if someone who does posted an identical question, your tone would have been inappropriate, unless I'm reading into things too much here. I recognize you as a regular, and perhaps you recognize me, and perhaps that's why you responded the way you did, or I'm making this all up...but I thought I'd just drop you this little note to clear the air. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The only malice I intended (and not at all covertly) was towards the intellectually dishonest individuals who attempt to dress up their personal religious beliefs as scientific through a misuse and misrepresentation of scientific terminology and concepts. In other words, I'm certainly not mad at you — I'm mad at the people who came up with that line of tripe in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Communicating with other editors

I keep this thread on your Talk page. Please observe my policy stated at the top of my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about the way that you're trying to communicate with SteveBaker on WT:RD. If you wish to have a private discussion with SteveBaker – or with anyone else – it would be wisest to take it to your talk pages. (Or, for that matter, to discuss the matter genuinely privately via email.) Please don't use hats closing off discussions involving a large number of other editors as a place to issue messages to single individuals — particularly since it's impossible for the target to respond in kind.

When you would like to meaningfully engage another editor in formal mediation (or even in informal discussion), it's generally counterproductive to issue ultimatums on high-traffic talk pages. It's definitely counterproductive to imply that they are ignorant, or that they should be compared to Nelson Muntz. It would also be wise to consider that it is very likely that SteveBaker never so much as saw your misplaced offer, as the very next editor of the talk page removed your hat: [2]. I would strongly recommend that you consider carefully the remarks Matt Deres made in that edit. It's not clear what issues you feel require mediation at this point, nor what you intend to do (toxic abuse?) when you withdraw your offer of mediation in 48 hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern that I appreciate. I concede that prematurely closing the discussion at WT:RD was wrong. If I characterise an argument as an Argument from ignorance it means that I claim it contains a logical fallacy, and of couse the burden of proof is on me. One characterises the argument not the person. This edit [3] did not delete my offer that still stands at WT:RD. SteveBaker is certainly aware of the offer. While (47 hours) there is still a prospect of resolving serious issues without disruption I shall not add any comment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For reference, you don't need to move the thread back and forth between talk pages. I will be able to follow the discussion if you respond on my talk page, or I have you talk page watchlisted and will see your responses here.

While I am pleased to hear that you appreciate my concern, I remain more than a little bit worried that you haven't taken what I've said on board. It's extremely unhelpful to couch an offer of mediation as some sort of ultimatum, complete with ticking countdown clock. What's going to happen in 47 hours, and how will it make Wikipedia a better place?

You still haven't actually reached out to SteveBaker (as far as I can tell) in a manner where you can be sure he's noted your comments. Your comment was one remark in a very busy thread, and it didn't really indicate what it was that you were looking for beyond 'mediation'. (Also, I don't think SteveBaker subsequently posted anywhere to that thread.) Before you attempt to contact him further, though, it would be a good idea to come up with a clear and concrete statement of what you hope to accomplish through mediation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure how your talk page policy applies

I'm trying to defuse conflict, not bring it to your talk page. And my post contained no personal attacks — so I'm not quite sure how your policy applies.

In any event, if you'd prefer to explain your ultimatum on my talk page rather than yours, you're more than welcome to. Failing that, perhaps you could offer an explanation of what goals you hope to accomplish through mediation. Either one, really. Both would be very helpful going forward. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

BION I share your wish to defuse conflict. The offer of mediation with no precondition was volunteered 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC) and it has certainly been seen by StevenBaker. If it is only ignored, the offer serves no purpose and it is impractical to extend it indefinitely. Your word choice "ultimatum" is more dramatic than I would choose and I hope you do not cast my position in this light in your contact with StevenBaker. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what are you looking for?

I think it would be quite easy to miss your earlier 'request' for mediation; I know that I didn't see it, and I tend to watch WT:RD fairly closely. And since your second message was hatted almost immediately, it's quite probable that he didn't see it, either. Do you have any evidence that SteveBaker has seen either message, or are you just assuming that you've been slighted? Coupled with your odd 48-hour deadline (you still haven't explained what will happen when it expires; you seemed to threaten some sort of 'abuse', but I'm hoping that's not the case), you seem to be looking to generate conflict, not resolve it.

I notice that you haven't gotten around to expressing what you hope to accomplish through mediation. What issues do you believe would be resolved by the process? Have you looked at the templated questions asked at WP:MEDCAB (click the 'File your request' button)? Those might be a good tool for you to use.

Look, obviously you're not interested in telling me what issues you want to seek mediation over, and you also don't want to tell me what it is you're threatening to do a couple of days from now. (You've ignored direct questions on both of those points a couple of times, now.) You don't seem to want to tell SteveBaker, either. That's fine; that's your prerogative. You're welcome to let the matter drift quietly into the talk page history, and I would strongly encourage you to do just that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you are an Administrator. You surprised me saying that you watch WT:RD closely yet do not notice text accompanying an image of rows of victims slaughtered by Nazis. Common sense tells one that SteveBaker does read what is posted at WT:RD where he is actively participating. You can read what SteveBaker and I have posted there, and you do not need me to explain SteveBaker's words for him. As an Administrator I think you should not provoke anyone with words like tell me what it is you're threatening to do a couple of days from now. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As an editor, I am very concerned when other editors issue ultimatums; being an administrator has precious little to do with it. You have at least twice referred to your countdown clock, and just above alluded to "serious disruption" that would occur if SteveBaker didn't capitulate to your demands within 47 hours. Asking you to clarify what you meant by that is far less provocative than your decision to issue a vague threat in the first place.

As for the 'grammar nazi' thing, is that what you're up in arms over? Why didn't you just say so when asked? While the term 'grammar nazi' is certainly insensitive, it is also a fairly – if regrettably – common part of internet lexicon. It is not meant to imply that the person it is directed at is a Nazi, or even anything close. While it is a disparaging term, it's generally considered fairly mild; it is intended to convey that the person so identified is (perhaps) being unnecessarily and unproductively concerned about another person's (mis)use of grammar. (Note that on Wikipedia, Grammar Nazi is a redirect to linguistic prescription.) See also the Urban Dictionary.

Instead of slapping a photo of Gestapo mass murders on the talk page and then accusing other editors of holocaust denial(!), did you try just talking to SteveBaker about what you found offensive? It's true; he shouldn't have called you a name. But it's not as nasty a name (at least in intent) as you think it is, and you've certainly given as good as you've gotten since. Either let the matter quietly drop, or approach Steve politely in a few days and talk it over after you've calmed down. You both seem to have very firm ideas about the strict application of rules — you with regard to grammar, Steve about Wikipedia policy. You both seem to be quite adept at pushing each other's buttons. You both need to make allowances for that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ultimatum? Threat? Capitulate? Demands? Slapping? You attribute these harsh terms to me and it sounds dramatic. However I think it is only you who are saying them.

"Reverted nazi/holocaust denial." which is part of this edit summary[4] was meant to summarise "Reverted removal of my posting of a nazi/holocaust image and denial of my posted text". I apologised[5] for any inference that this was holocaust denial. You may also see in this edit summary [6] "Thanks to Coneslayer for identifying non-free previous image.". Image use, not an imagined accusation of holocaust denial, was the problem that is now resolved. You may not have traced the full exchange. Coneslayer is one editor and you talk about accusing editors. I think you inflate.

I gather you think my offering to go to mediation is a demand. In my case you call it my demands. I think you inflate.

Wikipedia has an article that I hope gives you an idea of what SteveBaker has brought in view. If you can read it properly without weeping, as I confess I am doing at this moment, then your family may not have lost loved ones to Nazi killing as mine did. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the Nazis did terrible things. I find it extremely insulting that you think I might be unaware of Nazi crimes and atrocities, or that I somehow need lectures from you to fully appreciate the harm that they did. I also know just how offensive and abhorrent the act of Holocaust denial is, and the fact that you would use the term out of context and in an edit summary is appalling. Yes, you did apologize, but only after Coneslayer called you on it in his own edit summary: [7].

Finally, I know that the term "grammar nazi", while insensitive in the way of much internet chatroom lexicon, is not taken to intend any serious parallel with Hitler's followers. Given how casually you slipped an accusation of Holocaust denial into one of your own edits, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump on SteveBaker for carelessly using a bit of slang. I do not know – but I strongly suspect – that Steve would have made a different choice of word in his criticism of your actions if he had been aware of your circumstances (whatever they may be) or that you would be so hurt by what he said. Steve's a good guy. If you explained (calmly and politely) that you found his remark hurtful, he's probably be abashed and offer an apology.

Instead, you've decided to slap up images of rows of corpses, call him names, and threaten "serious disruption" if he doesn't agree to mediation. Your actions aren't those of someone who is looking to cool things down. Your actions are those of someone who is looking to bully and inflame. I don't get it; is your ego so badly pricked by the thought that someone could be ignoring your bluster? I can see that you might have done some ill-judged things in the heat of the moment, but it's days later and you're still not letting go. Unless you intend to explain what you meant by "serious disruption" or explain what will happen if SteveBaker doesn't respond to your offer (which you still haven't even bothered to make on his talk page, where he is actually sure to see it), or even tell me what you hope to gain from mediation, I don't think that there's anything productive that you can or should say on this page. Be aware that if you do choose to engage in formal dispute resolution, your conduct (including here) will be just as much under the microscope as Steve's. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What you post to me is riddled with suspicion and self justification, all at my expense. Indeed I do think that you are unaware of Nazi barbarities if the mere link to a Wikipedia article about their product provokes you to "find it extremely insulting" to be so reminded. Any one of those murdered men, women or children would pray to enjoy the rankle you are feeling now. Look at what you are doing: already you have a stack of crimes laid at my door, and seem intent on inflating your every accusation. I tire of your imagining "images" where there is one image, changed only for a copyright reason of which I was not initially aware. I tire of your tendentious rewording: apparently I don't post instead I "slap up" an image. When I apologise for something on being made aware of my error, to you it is an invalid apology because I made it only after I was made aware. It is an outright lie to claim that I "threaten 'serious disruption' if he doesn't agree to mediation", but that seems to be your focus of your imagination. I think you should spare me the psychobabble of "I don't get it; is your ego so badly pricked by the thought that someone could be ignoring your bluster?" which sounds like Dr. Phil (a TV psychologist celebrity). You pretend concern that SteveBaker might be unaware of my offer but seem more interested in putting on record your endorsement of him as a good guy than filling this incredible gap in his observation. I don't threaten anything. Your engagement in our little issue has degenerated to defaming me. That is unhelpful. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made an error; I apologize unreservedly for that. Your threat was of "disruption" (as in "While (47 hours) there is still a prospect of resolving serious issues without disruption I shall not add any comment"), which I had misquoted as "serious disruption".

Again, you still haven't taken the time to describe what "disruption" you envision causing, nor anything else that might happen after your deadline expires. You haven't explained what you'd like to accomplish through mediation. You haven't shown any interest in directly contacting Steve to explain where you're coming from, preferring to spend your time accusing me of being insensitive to Nazi atrocities. Your conspicuous unwillingness to do anything constructive to resolve the dispute that you seem to perceive will figure prominently in any formal mediation, if you manage to even find a mediator who would take this 'case' under these conditions.

Your insulting posts are unwelcome here. I don't want to be contacted by you further except, if absolutely necessary, in the context of already-started formal dispute resolution proceedings. (That is, I don't want you to waste my time and yours with threats like you've done in SteveBaker's case.) Implicitly accusing me of being a Nazi sympathizer is beyond the pale — go away. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept your apology because misquoting "serious issues" as "serious disruption" is merely a trivial sign of your fallacious thinking. You need to think Why are you reading and repeating words that are not there?

There is disruption at WT:RD. Notice that I use the present tense, not "will be" disruption. That's just in case you haven't noticed the chaotic spiral that is still developing on that page from a question prompted by a comma.

Wikipedia has an article Holocaust denial that identifies recent trends. The almost un-censorable Internet grows just as the last few witnesses die. You nobly express disgust at the subject of Holocaust denial, but what about Holocaust trivialisation? You seem complacent about the following kind of development: someone who dislikes their English teacher makes up a disparaging nicname for them. That happening is nothing new. You cite urbandictionary.com where anyone can post whatever they just thought up in school. It is not a WP:RS and it is dominantly hostile to grammar as this stream of entries shows:

Grammar Bitches Grammar boy Grammar Class Grammar Commie Grammar Cop grammar faerie grammar fags Grammar Fail Grammar Fascist Grammar Freak Grammar gangbang Grammar Gestapo Grammar Hammer Grammar Hippie Grammar Hypocrite grammar jew grammar nanny grammar natzi Grammar Nazi

You find "Grammar Nazi" also is a Wikipedia redirect to Linguistic prescription and decide that Nazi now means something petty like "unreasonable nitpicker". You are not AFAIK a Nazi sympathiser nor a Holocaust denier. You appear to be a Nazi trivialiser and that is insidious because you don't know what you do.

I have told you directly that it is your lie that I threaten anything. In a few hours it will no longer be relevant to offer SteveBaker mediation only to be ignored for days on end, nor should you have anything to say in that confidential, though now unlikely, discussion. Cheerio. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: Cuddlyable3 has been reminded that further insulting posts are unwelcome on my talk page: [8]. Obviously, I take great exception to his characterization of me as a "Nazi trivializer". He has declined to respond: [9]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

RD/S

Ten,

Thanks for the concise-yet-thorough summary of the magnetic suspension thing. I botched up flavors of "free fall", as you surmised, and extended an analogy a bit too far. Oh well -- perhaps I'll choose words more carefully the next time I catch someone else doing the same. Again, thanks -- very illuminating. — Lomn 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries; I got a bit loose (and possibly confusing) with my wording even in my supposedly-clarifying comment. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Award

		Civility Award
		For being civil, of course :-) Matt Deres (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You make some good points

at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Full_protected_Christopher_Monckton.2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

I have no doubt the arbs are astounded at edit-warring occurring even while they are trying to wordsmith the decision, but that doesn't excuse over-reaction. we elected them precisely to deal with hard cases, and the belief or hope that they could remain a voice of calm in messy situations. --SPhilbrickT 12:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been trying to engage with SirFozzie on his talk page; I hope that after a night off to reflect and relax he'll be able to understand why I'm so troubled by out-of-process imposition of remedies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie's actions

Thanks for your recent post at SirFozzie's talk page, it's reassuring to know that someone else sees that recused means recused. You are right about the ambiguity created by the directions to clerks, though that is mitigated to an extent by the comments of case arbitrators that followed. At least the line of authority is now clearly from arbitrators (though not ArbCom as a whole), rather than being enacted by a recused and thus unauthorised / unempowered arbitrator. I suspect, however, that an appropriate clarifying statement from a proper process will not be forthcoming... and a simple admission of error from SirFozzie also seems disappointingly unlikely.  :(

FYI I am concerned more with the issues of principles and ethics because I have seen too many actions from recused arbitrators that were unjustifiable. In one case, a recused arbitrator who was a party to the case responded to an email I sent to the Committee that contained sensitive and private information. As far as I am concerned a recused arbitrator should not be privy to private case-related emails; that the recused arbitrator was a party to the case made his ethical violation in reading private emails more egregious. It is disappointing to see that ArbCom members remain unable to behave appropriately when recused, even recognising that the standards of behaviour expected of recused arbitrators are remarkably permissive and lax. EdChem (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

is this a DIC image?

File:HeLa Hoechst 33258.jpg -- is this live-cell imaging, as well? John Riemann Soong (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's a confocal image of Hoechst 33258 fluorescence in live HeLa cells, overlaid on a DIC transmitted light image. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling corrected

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I refer to this edit of yours. It is peculiar that you choose to delay a correction of my spelling error until you found it opportune to combine it with gratuitous disparagement under the wrong question on the wrong reference desk. Informing an OP that they used a different word than they intended is part of a helpful response. Clearly you do not see it so and instead introduce the inappropriate description of my post as "throwing stones". Your behaviour here together with the exchange above "Communicating with other editors" that I have dismissed from my Talk page show that you have a problem with me personally. I note that you consider yourself insulted[10] which must make WP:AGF difficult for you. Nevertheless, you will either muzzle your hostility towards what I post to others or see me complaining formally about your fitness as an administrator. By all means tell me when I make a factual error because this is welcome and it is the way editors work towards consensus. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted previously, your posts are unwelcome on this talk page unless you're actually following through on a threat, instead of just blustering and bullying. Until you rescind your ban on discussing your behavior on your own talk page, then I will not be responding to your posts here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Forking

[11] I think you might have been better served by a link to Schism (religion) rather than Fork (software development)  ;) 87.102.43.171 (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I like the modern version. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You will, Oscar

Re [12] I said that William M. Connolley (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's what I get for going off to make a cup of tea with the 'new section' tab open. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Since Chris invited SirFozzie to review those words for himself, it hardly seems plausible that Chris is attempting to mislead."

Perhaps you would like to interpret Shell's words for yourself, and see if Lar's accusation is reasonable. Here are the two edits from Shell on that talk page:

• [13] - Clearly directed at Chris, and clearly critical of his approach.
• [14] - Questions FormerIP's claim that there hasn't been any complaints, by referring to the previous 4 sections of conflict.

Since you are defending Chris and attacking Lar, you are defending Chris's claim that these edits are asking the same question he is. It seems very clear to me that such a claim is a misrepresentation. But I may be missing something so perhaps you can clarify. ATren (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was criticising Lar's rhetorical style and his implied attacks; I wasn't defending Chris. But I doubt that you're really interested in a constructive discussion; you've already made your particular biases abundantly clear. You'll recall that the last time you showed up on my talk page it was to defend an obvious sockpuppet, just because it was fiddling with WMC's biography. I really don't have anything to say to you, and I'm not inclined to respond to you further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realize that "it hardly seems plausible that Chris is attempting to mislead" was not a defense of Chris. Obviously I'm as poor at reading intent as Lar is. I'll leave it at that then. ATren (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Charming fellow. My talk page isn't a place to try to score debating points. If you had genuinely been interested in discussing my reasoning, you would have asked me here before you made a snarky announcement judging me to be in the wrong, rather than after. Shoo. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And maybe you should have checked the facts before assuming ChrisO was right and Lar wrong. Bias indeed. But as long as you're done pestering Lar on this, I'm done too. You can have the last word. ATren (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I found your comment

Yeah, ChrisO — why did you stop beating your wife? [15]

just a bit out of order. Such aggressive language is not helpful for a productive discussion.--Salix (talk): 01:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the example, if not metonym, for a loaded question. That being said, it is not as generally known outside Wikipedia as some Wikipedians imagine, and I would suggest caution in using it. But I am certain Ten meant it as a code for a loaded question. Nothing more, nothing less. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I did; in fact I linked directly to the relevant article, piped from those words, just to avoid any confusion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Hi Ten - I don't want to bring undue attention to this, even on Ref Desk Talk, but I think [section on Misc] might herald the return of an old "friend." If I'd noticed it before responses were posted, I might have reverted immediately, but it's there now. Just wanted another pair of eyes on it. Thanks. --LarryMac | Talk 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite

TOAT, I feel the need to clarify this matter for you. ChrisO made insulting and incivil remarks about MarkNuttley's education at a RfC/U. He has been warned recently by Jimbo and repeatedly by admins to be more civil. The comment in regards to Hipocrite's mis-spelling of a word was directed at ChrisO, not Hipocrite, and despite being told to "f" off, I apologized and redacted the comment as I did not mean to belittle a disability (that I had no prior knowledge of). Having said that, there was absolutely no excuse for his tirade. None. I would not want him sanctioned on the initial outburst, but it should not be allowed to continue, as Amory stated.

I find it disturbing that there are a number of admins in this area that will not look at all sides equally, and will always side with the activist/alarmist faction, no matter what the issue is.

I would also have hoped that you would have assumed good faith instead of falsely alleging that I made a "deliberate attack" on Hipocrite - it was not and frankly your allegation to that effect is insulting. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss it?

I must have missed your warning to ChrisO for belittling Marknutley. This is surely an oversight on your part, given how strongly you reacted to GJP's quip which wasn't even directed at Hipocrite. ChrisO's comment was much more personal and insulting, and deserves a much more stern warning than GJP got. Perhaps you're still working on just the right wording before you post the warning to ChrisO's page? ATren (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@ATren Please stop this sort of thing it is not constructive, you are making this a very unpleasant place. Polargeo (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@Polargeo. I thought Atren's point was appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 14:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently, we've had far too many threads where A berates B about B not complaining to C about how C reacted to D when D complained about the way E reacted to something F did. This needs to stop. At the risk of succumbing to an act of meta-irony here, I strongly recommend everybody just stop commenting about anybody else, anywhere and about anything at all. This goes to everybody in this thread, and others too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention and participation

As you might know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

misc.

I'd like your opinion on this:[16] The IP in question made 2 edits, 17 minutes apart, of which the first seemed innocent (if not too bright) and the second was pure vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Phantom user page and user talk page

I just created User:TOAT and User talk:TOAT, for my own benefit, as I keep forgetting what the initials stand for. That, of course, would confuse any actual new user named TOAT. If what I did is against policy or if you don't think it's appropriate, feel free to delete those redirects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Duly nuked. I used the "may cause confusion" clause. TOAT may disagree, but I doubt they would do so using a redirect to their upage. Shouldn't we also have "B.Bugs, right-wing patsy" and "B.Bugs, rabid left-winger" if we are going to create redirects for commonly used editor referents? ;) Franamax (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Right-winger and left-winger? Yes, clearly we need both. However, by now I think I will be able to recall TOAT's full name, so it's moot. Thanks for watching out for us. :) P.S. It occurs to me that it might make more sense to have a sub-page of users with frequent (hopefully positive) interaction. That info is also in the watch list, but that's a time-consuming process to open on my old TRS-80 here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Would suggest TenOfAllTrades creates User:TOAT as WP:DOPPEL and (restore the) redirects here. –xeno^talk 22:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RD talk page

I'm curious why you semi-protected the RD talk page instead of blocking the IP vandal? Cheers - Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is one RD talk page, while there are endless IP trolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Obtaining a new IP address is a matter of a few minutes to reconnect to his ISP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As happens all the time with that one guy, which CT should be well aware of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The RD talk page is protected for a reason, yet we've got users copying trolling, useless comments from IP's to it now. That needs to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs is almost certainly refering to this edit, which seems an entirely legitimate edit. If a page is semi-protected It's reasonable to assist IP editors by moving their non-trolling posts over. Otherwise you've just silenced an entire class of users. APL (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't post snide comments about other editors' grammar on the Ref Desk

Please don't offer your snide and sarcastic corrections to other editors' grammar while posting to the Ref Desks [17]. Where the meaning of a post is entirely clear and unambiguous, there is no reason at all for you to 'play dumb' and implicitly criticise. Such corrections are particularly unhelpful where you have a history of conflict with the other editor.

After all the kerfuffle on the RD talk page, it should be clear to you by now that your posts on this topic are unwelcome, unnecessary, and counterproductive. Your approach makes other editors feel unwelcome at the Ref Desks, and thereby interferes with the Desks' aims. It would be much more constructive if you were to confine yourself to posts which offer answers to the poster's questions. If you wish to correct others' grammar, feel free to do so in Wikipedia's articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

First you want to teach me that it's okay to call another editor a NAZI because Wikipedia has an article Soup nazi and Urban dictionary has amongst other rubbish "Grammar nazi". Next you whine "Cuddlyable3 bans me from his page". The record shows you lying about me allegedly threatening disruption. I give you two facts to digest:

• In English IT'S means IT IS. If someone doesn't care to be told that then tough luck, it is what English speakers have learned for centuries.
• We have a Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines that say: Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say.

You may pursue this thread all you like but it will be kept off my page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, you aren't being very "cuddly" right now with these comments. Don't comment on other people's language. Sometimes people misspell, it happens. When typing is the only form of communication here, you are going to make a mistake every now and then. So relax. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unpleasant invective aside, you haven't really explained why your edits are constructive and helpful to the Reference Desk's purpose, nor why you've chosen to ignore the ample guidance that has been given to you before on this matter. It would be helpful to phrase your response in terms of how and why your behaviour is likely to improve Wikipedia's editing environment and assist in achieving the project's goals.

Quoting chapter and verse of Wikipedia guidelines as your justification doesn't really move us forward — it's not really credible to argue that anything which is not expressly forbidden is always a good idea or a best practice. In any event, I'm sure that your close reading of the text also included the box at the top of the page, which reminds you that – as with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines – "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ALS and MND

I am sometimes asked to put together research paper collections regarding various topics by various individuals and interest groups. And I stumbled by accident on the events caused by the recent article in the New York Times regarding ALS. In the last few months I created a CiteULike Motor Neuron Disease (MND) reseaerch paper library currently there are 95 international research papers listed. Any one who joins CiteULike and joins the Motor Neuron Disease (MND) group can add more research papers to increase the quality of information available. You may find this useful dolfrog (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally found time-- responded on my talk. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal

Regarding this edit

I was at the Recent Changes log and I thought that it was vandalism. I wasn't thinking and I thought that it was just vandalism. It wasn't intentional; I'm not engaged in the conversation on the talk page. --Sweet xx^Talk 21:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns at my talk page

I have responded to your concerns at my talk page. I would appreciate additional input on this matter; your opinion on this issue is valuable to me and I would like to hear what else you may have to say on the matter. --Jayron32 05:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments at my talk page.

Thank you for your additional, well thought out comments at my talk page. I had a few closing statements, which you may want to read. --Jayron32 03:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess who?

Hi TenOfAllTrades. Thanks for your good work directed at Light current. I have noticed some IP addresses that I don’t think have been associated with Light current in the past, but which, almost certainly, are being used by him. See this posting at WP:RD/S: diff 1. (This post was reverted a couple of times but restored both times by the original author.) The original author made a further substantive post on the thread: diff 2.

A later posting on this thread came from one of Light current’s traditional IP addresses, 88.104.92.205, and confirms the original posting was from the same person. See HERE Dolphin (t) 03:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, they know how to use open proxies. You could watch that IP range for future antics. The latest CU turned up at least one proxy server, this seems par for the course. Franamax (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded already at Dolphin51's talk — I don't think this one is one of our regulars, on behavioural evidence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the assist with C3. APL (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI comment

Please correct your mistake on ANI regarding my appeal. I restored the reference one time, not twice. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 18:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Amended. (You added the source and misrepresented it twice, but only once as a revert.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Appeal

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to my question (Mercury vs. Silver)

Your response was helpful, but it looks like you deleted another editor's comment. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd. It didn't flag the edit conflict; I've fixed it now. In the future, you can go ahead and correct that sort of error if you see it. Occasionally the Mediawiki software doesn't report edit conflicts propoerly on high-traffic pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't take long.

Cuddlyable3 Felt the need to point out my accidental missuse of "it's" here. Particularly insulting is the way he phrases his complaint to try to pretend he's legitimately confused.

I don't want to make a fuss over a single sentence on my talk, but if(when) it keeps happening, what's a good next step? Back to AN/I? Drop a note to the banning admin? I'm unfamiliar of Wikipedia policy about this sort of stuff. (Thankfully.) APL (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, never mind. Guess I didn't have to do anything, people are watching cuddlyable3. I should have known. APL (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

80.47 range

80.47.11.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.47.45.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks like the banned user "Light current" has found another IP range. I have asked WP:AIV to issue a month-long range block. We'll see if they do the right thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

80.47.26.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Pardon me but this looks like his work as well. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm...while those all certainly appear to be the same editor, I'm not persuaded that their contributions match the style and interests of Light current. My reading of the whois data suggests that while the 80.47.24.0 - 80.47.31.255 IP range does belong to Tiscali, it's a block that they acquired through their purchase of Pipex, and I suspect that it's still primarily populated by former Pipex customers rather than regular Tiscali subscribers.

The contributions are certainly blockworthy, and I won't feel bad about seeing the back of this person, but they don't seem to be the right type of trolling for LC. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The ultimate irony would be someone impostoring LC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RS/N discussion about plagiarism

Hello. My apologies that I came across the wrong way! That was certainly not my intention. I think we've misunderstood each other a bit. Sorry!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)