User talk:Hipocrite/10/2010
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As I am still listed as a disputing party (I still had this on my watchlist), commenting here. The content dispute (where I was an involved party) on Talk:Maharashtra (Read from "Marathi statement dispute" onwards), IMO has been settled after the the WP:RfC. It is may be best to close the discussion. If the same page is going to examine the actions of SpacemanSpiff and the allegations of Zuggernaut, then my name may be dropped from the " Who is involved?" part as the dispute is between the two users then. Thanks. Please let me know what you choose to do. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I removed you from the list of parties. The requested actions were all about a dispute between the filer and SpacemanSpiff. I'm glad the RFC cleared things up with respect to content. Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- The other editors aren't that active anymore. We'll have to wait till they are back. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back
You were missed!
ScienceApologist (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Second that, good to see you back! . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
I was going to do an FoF on John W Barber but see that you have which saves me a lot of time. I think that his comments under the comments about KDP's FoF and SrJessey (sp?) should also be added. Anyways, thank you for taking the time to put it together. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to mention any diffs I missed on the talk page of the PD for the arbitors to consider. Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure, you put a disclaimer there about not wanting to get into discussions with others other than arbitrators. If I add more won't this encourage more discussions or do you want me to add a separate one instead of adding to your FoF? Sorry this is kind of a learning experience for me. I've never done an Fof or anything else but make comments or ask questions. This is I think my third arb case, the fringe one and the infamous WMC-Abd case which I kind of got dragged into after I just made a minor comment. Can I add the difs directly to yours? I am under tropical storm warnings so I'd like to make things quick since it's supposed to go to hurricane sometime soon last I heard. Thanks, and welcome back too. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you write "the following diffs should also be considered [diff][diff][diff] -signature" after my proposal then the arbs might read it - they also might ignore it. I am certain that if lots and lots of people start arguing about the proposal, they will ignore it, so allow me to beg you not to get into some long convoluted explanation - the arbitors have made it clear that if there is a back-and-forth of any sort they will throw up their hands and ignore it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, like I said I'm new to this, I just planned on supplying difs and signing. I'll do it below like you suggest. Thank you, if you see any problems please go to my talk page and let me know, thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- You might also want to notify all the users you filed those Findings on....as a matter of protocol...--Snowman frosty (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that I had placed the paragraphs in reverse chronological order. Let's see if it's better now. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Ban
It was only for six months that ban is over now, have fun WritersCramp (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Use of sources
On a discussion of Cla68's use of sources I have cited two sections of the evidence page, one from you and one from Dave Souza. The venue is User talk:Newyorkbrad. --TS 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Removal of Discover the Networks references
I was curious why you are doing a mass removal of Discover the Networks references. Was there some decision on a noticeboard that precipitated this? Drrll (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. I did the same thing about a year ago. There was clear consensus a long time ago that DTN is not a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9#Sami_Omar_Al-Hussayen. While DTN is reliable for the views of David Horowitz, it is not a reliable source for asserted fact - it is certainly not a reliable source for facts about people who disagree with David Horowitz. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- While [Unreliable Left-leaning Advocacy Site] is reliable for the views of [Unreliable Left-leaning Advocacy Site Owner], they are not a reliable source for asserted fact - it is certainly not a reliable source for facts about people who disagree with [Unreliable Left-leaning Advocacy Site Owner]. Ask about a specific site, if you'd like the brackets filled in. Or search RSN to see if it's been previously adressed. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- What about the multitude of references to Media Matters for America, sometimes used in BLPs to established what a BLP subject said? Drrll (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
- A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
- Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
- Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
- The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);
- The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
- The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-18/Ancient Greece
I have volunteered to mediate this - if you are still interested in mediation. Is there something a mediator can still help with? Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the gracious offer.
- A couple of editors managed to turn that into a very ugly situation. Probably you have seen the how that all went. What I had needed was to calm things down so that editors with an actual interest in the topic might choose to participate. From past experience I know that once things reach a certain level of insanity serious editors typically stay away from the discussion, and it became clear that this had gone well past that point. It became a "damage is done" situation.
- That isn't the first time that I've watched somebody abuse the process to shut down a discussion they wanted to prevent. I frankly became disillusioned and decided a different hobby is in order.
- --Mcorazao (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hope you peek in or something...
Hey Hipocrite, I am taking the chance that you will peek in at some time to see this. The Climate change case has caused a lot of editors to leave the project. Some may say good, some may say bad, me I hope to see you and some of the others return refreshed and happy. The stress of editing has gotten to a lot of long term editors here and it seems to have made editing a very miserable experience. I know the type of editing you do so I hope that you just take some time away from here to do some other things, but that you return sometime soon in the future. Thank you for the help you gave me in the past so kindly and freely. I would like to note that you were one of the editors who pushed hard at the sanction board to try to get control of the bad behaviors. I noticed, don't think enough others noticed, but I did. I should have said something at the PD talk page but I honestly forgot to mention it and with all the noise, I don't know if anyone else did either. I am sorry for that now. I don't know if it would have made a difference or not but it might have, which gives me some regrets. Feel free to email me if you prefer not to respond here. Well take care of yourself with whatever you decide to do, be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I will stop edit warring
Thanks for the heads up. I realize it takes two to tango and I will stop edit warring. For the record I would like to point out that I have asked the other party to get input at the appropriate noticeboard many times now, but he insists on acting unilaterally.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. For future reference, I have no desire to edit the topic on my user-talk page, or in portal space, or any other technical out. The ArbCom thought my editing was problematic, so I'm taking their 6 month offer. I'll prove the problem was someone else by clearing the MedCab backlog. Hipocrite (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's great news. I know it doesn't affect you or most topic banned editors directly, but as the topic ban affects over a dozen editors there wasn't a realistic alternative to notifying everybody. Just ignore it, you're doing fine if you're getting stuck into Medcab. --TS 01:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)