User talk:Raymond arritt

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page. If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.

Greenwich

May 2024

22

Wednesday

5:52 am UTC

A note on email: Wikipedia-related discussion should be carried on here, in view of the Wikipedia community. Following the principles stated in this arbcom decision, I will not conduct Wikipedia business by private email. My email is enabled and you're welcome to initiate contact that way; however, I won't respond by email to your inquiry and will instead reply on-wiki.

Care of the cow brings good fortune.

---

The awesome BULLSTAR is hereby awarded for facing down so much BS and yet managing to not lose your self control.--MONGO 08:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Sorry I wasn't here to take your call. You can leave a message after the tone.

Tone

You guys are all losers

bitches

That's not very nice. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

CIV

Much better, thanks. I also agree that the bit about being dumb doesn't belong in the civility policy, but I'd argue that dense people and the things they say and do can stress others as well. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 23:17, April 8, 2008

Global Warming and related articles

Raymond, I've noticed that you do a good job of helping keep the Global Warming and related articles NPOV, balanced, and complete. I've seen some complaints both on and off-wiki that those articles are supposedly a walled garden protected by a group of POV pushers. But seeing as how you're actively involved with them, I know that can't be the case and that I don't need to involve myself. Please keep up the great work. Cla68 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase JzG, we should perhaps post a notice that "this article accurately reflects the scientific literature on the topic, and my goodness do some people hate that." Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Accurately reflecting the scientific literature on a topic" is so Web 1.0. It's two-double-oh-eight, my friend. If you don't like what the World Health Organization has to say about a topic, just follow up their opinion with an article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons which rebuts them. MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to discuss with you what I feel are unjustified editorial 'qualifications' within a specific section of the Global warming controversy. Specifically,

Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[25] but his attempted refutation is disputed.[26][27][28] Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."[27]

The idea that he 'claimed' to have found flaws, when he did in fact find flaws in the methods used to determine consensus, is disingenuous. It's not an argument as to whether there is or is not a consensus, it's whether or not Oreskes' work could be used to prove or disprove that consensus exists. The answer to that is no it cannnot. While the fact that many of the 928 articles she cites 'agree' is certainly evidence, it's hardly a scientifically accurate sample of the available data. Especially since, as Peiser explained, many of the articles used in her 'study' have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change as an anthropogenic effect. Also, any refutation could be described as 'attempted', and in this case it amounts to an editorially biased commentary on the quality or effect of his findings. Please read Keiser's Response to inquiry regarding his published findings--Kasmel (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Peiser claims that Peiser did it right (or partly right). The truth is that almost none of Peiser's abstracts had anything at all to do with global warming, much less disputing the consensus. Peiser is an anthropologist and was clearly out of his depth when trying to assess the scientific literature. See Tim Lambert's critique, among others. "Claimed" and "attempted" are in fact generous; one can make a strong case for "embarrasingly inaccurate," but we'll go with the softer wording. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Um. Again, you have decided to look at Peiser's work as an attempt to discredit the idea that there is a consensus. That is not the case, as he has clearly stated. He was simply pointing out that Oreskes made bare assumptions of a consensus based on a non-scientific approach to inquiry, which he proved purely on the basis of the description of given search parameters used by Oreskes herself. I agree that there is more or less a consensus, in that the majority of climatologists, and other scientific experts in supporting or corollary fields, agree that to a greater or lessor extent there is an anthropogenic aspect to global climate change. The debate isn't, again, regarding whether or not this is the case, it's regarding whether or not Oreskes' findings represent a conclusive and scientifically viable study of the consensus itself. Again, the very simple and straight forward answer to this is no, her study was poorly structured and ill conceived from beginning to end. So the editorially charged 'qualifications' or Peiser's rebuttal are not only unnecessary, but are a direct attempt to legitimize Oreskes' study which in fact can only be used to discredit the idea that there is a consensus.--Kasmel (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What Peiser tried to do was worth doing, but he botched it abysmally. If we add Peiser's unpublished debunking of Oreskes, we have to add the numerous unpublished debunkings of Peiser. So in the end the article will gain nothing but excess verbiage, and we'll unnecessarily add to Peiser's embarrassment. And we don't need to beat the "consensus" dead horse anyway since the national science academies of major industrialized nations have said there's a consensus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to add either study. But I think that if we're going to qualify Peiser's study, we should have the good sense to qualify Oreskes' as well. Something along the lines of, 'A statistically questionable 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.' would be sufficient to end this discussion. It's a matter of the pot and the kettle. If we call shenanigans on one poorly structured study, and not another, that smacks of bias and can unecessessarily color the discussion.--Kasmel (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oreskes' study was published in Nature and has stood up well to criticism. A sample size of 928 is indeed sufficient for statistical purposes - as an example, it is about the size used for many opinion polls in the US. Do you have any source for "statistically questionable"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From Oreskes' own words. BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. The first three categories do not directly coincide. Evaluation of impact, and mitigation proposals can be authored without having a distinct stance on whether or not climate change is largely anthropogenic. She also doesn't break up the, 75% into the distinct categories leading one to believe that they all are a direct 'endorsement of the consensus position'. Not too mention her use of 'implicit' could very well be subjective. Saying that since a portion of 75% of one type of paper regarding climate change were a direct endorsement of consensus, and that none of remaining 25% were a direct contradiction of it means that there is a general consensus is questionable. It's like taking that political survey, and saying that the undecideds will unquestionably agree with one side or the other. Once more, it's not a question of whether or not there is a consensus, it's a matter of whether or not her survey can be used as a accurate proof of it's existence. I do not believe that it can. It has worth to be sure, but the conclusions drawn, whether true or not, cannot be drawn purely from the evidence of her study.--Kasmel (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

← My goodness. I was being somewhat flippant above, but clearly we're in a post-irony Wikipedia. Oreskes' article was published in Nature. Peiser's rebuttal was published... well... nowhere in the scientific literature, and is sourced to an op-ed column by Peiser in the National Post. The day that a paper in Nature can be scientifically "rebutted" by an op-ed column in a fairly partisan newspaper is a sad day for Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: It is a sad day for Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, It is obvious that the person with the quickest revert button has control and I have no interest in such. (My second post was because I thought that I must have exited too quickly with the first; then I checked the history.) The reality of greenhouse gasses will not go away. I will revisit occasionally just to follow the development. I am particularly interested in what happens as people become more knowledgable about optical spectroscopy and its relevance to AGW. Dan Pangburn (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to promote original research that has never been published in a medium with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (more at WP:V). For a scientific topic, that would ordinarily mean a peer-reviewed journal that is listed in the ISI Science Citation Index. Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia follows rather than leads the scientific literature (more at WP:CRYSTAL). You're welcome to try again after your work has been published in an academic journal and has made an impact on the field. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Expert advice?

Hi, I've been looking at your expert withdrawal page and put an idea in there, not that I think I can figure out something in half an hour that noone else has figured out before, I believe it has, I just don't know if it's been actually tried. I am a newbie editor, but I feel loath at giving of my way way way too limited time to this project if it runs like it does now, so that's why I'm interested in helping fix things.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actionable intelligence

So if calling someone a "POV-pusher" is "actionable" incivility, then isn't calling someone "uncivil" also itself an uncivil act? Aren't group denigrations (e.g. "a bunch of uncivil editors") uncivil? I think the reductio ad absurdem of this recent trend is to declare that it is uncivil to call anyone uncivil. I think I'm going to start enforcing actionable breaches of WP:CIV now. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My brain hurts. T.F. Gumby (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No pain, no gain. Or as the Marines say, "Pain is weakness leaving the body." I like your sockfarm, by the way. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi RA, could you take a look. . .

Hi Raymond, I was wondering if you could check over a recent block I made. I just want to make sure I didn't miss anything. If you have a bit of time I'd appreciate it. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, lots of background there. I'll try to have a look this evening when I have more time to go into it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, I guess there is a lot to read. If you don't get time to look at the overall merits, that's ok. OTOH, if you notice anything technically lacking on my part (I've left a notice with a link to an unblock request template, which I think is all I have to do) with regard to following the blocking protocol -that's something I would want to know, and would be a little quicker to check (I hope). R. Baley (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

My apologies, it was poorly worded. I meant that we need to watch that the editor doesn't break 3RR again, as he's done so in the past and has ignored warnings to stop. Grsz^talk 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your omission

I'd kindly suggest you explain your conduct which I consider to constitute deliberate omission of unacceptable behavior by user Aude. While you're revaluating your own decision try to answer the following question:

Did user Aude followed any of the principles stated by the Arbcom?

Also, please remind yourself of the remedies proposed by the committee.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

I'd suggest that user Aude, who failed to follow every point made above take advice of Arbcom and restricts its editing to other topics. I'm asking for revision of the article, so it may take the form in which it stood before user Aude took the liberty of enforcing its own POV. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where Aude violated any of the provisions of the arbcom decision. Regarding your proposal for the article, the arbcom remedies refer solely to editor to conduct and do not provide for revisions to article text. You can view the arbcom remedies here.[1] Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aude violated NPOV policy while reinserting its own POV without any discussion, which leads us to the violation of the editorial process which clearly states that we should seek consensus for any radical change in the articles. I've read the policy which, apparently, forced you into swift decision to archive the issue brought on noticeboard, and while I'll restrain from calling user Aude a vandal, I'll state clearly that he/she acted in extremely bad faith. It has been brought to my attention that we are dealing with long established user, which, unfortunately as it may sound doesn’t make this case lighter in anyway. It might be that I've reacted vigorously on this issue, but consensus for that section was reached and I find disregard which Aude showed utterly unacceptable. I'll try to fix the damage done there, with hope that we wont have this sort of disruption again. Regards. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Redflag Tachyonbursts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has ignored your warning[2] and also made a legal threat.[3] Some banning and blocking is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I see East has already taken care of things. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That was an effective thread. Five troublemakers were banned from the locus of dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments to ScienceApologist

I did not make a personal attack on ScienceApologist, I merely pointed out the incorrectness of his comment on *my* talk page. This is a matter between ScienceApologist and myself, how is it you have entered the fray? Please reference the following text from the wp:npa page:

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character

I noted the *errors* in his comment to me, used civil language, used the word "please" and made no comments about the person's character. Please re-read the wp:npa policy before you make remarks on my talk page thusly. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the policy; referring to other editors as "arrogant" and the like violates it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also familiar with the policy, and with my comments. I did not refer to anyone as "arrogant", I referred to the twisting of truth as "arrogant". I'm afraid, however, that you haven't addressed my contention with you interfering with a discussion I am having with another contributor to Wiki. Please address this, thank you. Supertheman (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because Raymond is an administrator and can stick his nose into anything he wants to keep people from going crazy? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't give him the right to make false accusations. Also, we all might refrain from going crazy if other members would refrain from poking their nose into a discussion that doesn't concern them *cough Orangemarlin*. Thanks Supertheman (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your post above is precisely the sort of thing that I was concerned about. There's more to personal attacks and incivility than using swear words. Wikipedia is a cooperative project and it's one of our fundamental principles that everyone has the right to poke their nose wherever they see fit (see e.g., [WP:OWN]] for the most obvious example). That doesn't mean badgering or so-called "wikistalking" is tolerated. But if someone sees an issue of concern they have every right to address the matter whether they were part of the original exchange or not. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you interpret civility to include my objection to inserting yourself into a discussion not yours, but not to your unkind and unneeded intrusion into same. I took issue with your intrusion because it would escalate the matter, a quick look at your talk page and mine bears this fact out. No less than *five* different persons have intruded into this matter that we speak of, yet none of them have directed their concern to *his* page, even though he threatened me on my talk page on two occasions.

Clearly since you have not taken the time to chide him on his breaches of incivility, but have quickly and vehemently chastised me, it is apparent that your concern is *hardly* for the "cooperative project" and otherwise concerned with protecting your friend.

I consider the matter closed, but repeat my previous objection and appeal to your civility to please not intrude in a personal discussion that doesn't concern you. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am satisfied to let your words speak for themselves. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to go take a look at my talk page, once again ScienceAplogist has started *yet another* topic on my talk page and this time called me an advocate of lies. User_talk:Supertheman#Warning_regarding_the_advocacy_of_lies

Would you call his behavior "baiting". Haha, I bet not. I wonder if you who have been chiding me for my civility will have anything to say about his. ah... yeah, right. Supertheman (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

LPS

Have you considered writing an essay on WP:LPS? While my first association for the acronym is lipopolysaccharide and sepsis, I think that an essay on Lousy Partisan Sources^TM is long overdue. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a whirl. Ideas welcome. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby

Hey, I saw you blocked User:Etribs as a scibaby sock, so, I blocked the user that created it, as well as the other user it had created (User talk:Illi Racor and User:Pongo the Friendly Dragon) you may want to tag 'em as well. SQL^{Query me!} 07:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Contest

I'd like to contest decision you've just made. Please be kind and show me how I may do that. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Already replied at the WP:AE thread. There are several avenues for appeal, as I explained there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware that my conduct was not appropriate, I'm somewhat certain that you're a person which is able to take more than one perspective upon the recent discussion. I'm honestly not sure what misconduct I've done today to deserve a ban? If you could clarify it for me, I'd appreciate it and most certainly avoid it in future. Thanks. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, please be kind and clarify, what have I done today that forced you into making your decision? Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ray, you've made a very serious decision, are you sure you don't wont to invalidate it? Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But it's been so cold this winter...

[4]: It should also help the public and policy makers understand that a cool phase does not mean the overall theory of human-driven warming is flawed, Dr. Trenberth said. “Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year,” Dr. Trenberth said. “It does not happen that way.” Do you think we could have the developers make this show up in flashing letters every time someone goes to save an edit on global warming controversy? MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I know this will shock and disappoint you both, but it turns out that the list of scientists who deny global warming was artificially inflated. Antelan^talk 03:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Next you'll be telling me that the lists of "HIV skeptics" on AIDS denialist wesbites name many people who have long since accepted that HIV causes AIDS. The kicker is that somehow the self-published, scientifically illiterate denialist websites are always reliable enough to cite, but self-published sites pointing out such errors are not. WP:PARITY? MastCell ^Talk 05:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows that AIDS occurs when you have an inadequate blood-level of garlic. Antelan^talk 06:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypogarlicemia is a dangerous thing. I honestly cannot imagine what it would be like to be a physician treating HIV/AIDS in South Africa and contending with a government that passive-aggressively embraces AIDS denialism. For all the Constant Gardener BS, the drug companies have made cheaper, generic antiretrovirals to give away, but the government drags its feet and abets people like Matthias Rath - in a country where 16–18% of the adult population is HIV-positive. I'd go nuts. MastCell ^Talk 06:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm now on a roll. Why is the article named AIDS reappraisal. We all use AIDS denialism, which is what it should be called. BTW, garlic works because no one would want to be near you, hence reducing the probability of an exchange of bodily fluids. One more thing, while I'm still on this roll. Why are we called "skeptics" by these denialists. I'm not a skeptic of anything, merely I like good science. The anti-science crowd (whether global warming or AIDS denialists) are the skeptics of real science. We need to use the right terms. The right wing always sets the tone with names that stick. But I'm preaching to the choir. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hell, you're preaching to the preachers! Antelan^talk 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OM raises a good point. A search shows that "AIDS reappraisal" is almost exclusively an in-universe (and in-Wikipedia!) term, while "AIDS denialism" is attested in multiple reliable sources. Why isn't the article just called "AIDS denialism"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Does an admin have to move the article to the right name? Or can I be bold? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can move an unprotected article. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch the article please, in case it gets a little crazy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism already exists. It says only a fine admin such as yourself can do that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

<RI>Done and Bradstreet. Cute. We have another issue with . I have no clue how to rename that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)