Bigred58

Talk pages

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. When editing article talk pages, please mind the talk page guidelines. These contributions ([1], [2]) are inappropriate for an article talk page; discussion there should be directed at specific content issues, and should focus on content rather than other contributors. If you feel that a specific editor is acting inappropriately, then please take a look at our dispute resolution pathway rather than berating them on an article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not restore those comments. They have been removed by three separate editors, two of them admins, so you will be treading on thin ice if you persist. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are treading on thin ice if you continue to let a friend and colleague of a group of scientist involved in a very hot issue at the moment control their stub. He has already agreed that he shouldn't be involved in threads dealing with his realclimate compatriots but this issue seems sever enough for him to ignore the restriction he placed upon himself. So that reeks of bias and propaganda.

Perhaps those are good reasons to pursue action in the appropriate venues, which I've linked above. Using what appears unlikely to be your first Wikipedia account to post vituperation on an article talk page is a non-starter. You may want to look at the conflict of interest noticeboard, or at the administrator's incident board, as possible venues if you have a concern about William Connolley's conflict of interest. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"sockpuppet" allegations

Even if I were to make sock puppet allegations. I wouldn't be trying to get people banned. I think I can fairly characterize that there is a lot of bad faith reverting and editing on the climate related pages by people thinking they are doing it for "the cause". But there isn't any point in raising those to sockpuppet allegations, because there probably can't be any proof without subpoena powers. In the past there were formal and semi-formal back channels upon which there was some coordination going on. The formal channel was mailing list that I think tried to stay away from bias, but if anyone unaware of the separate appeals and arguments going on there would have been at a disadvantage in getting an equal hearing. The semi-formal back channel was a chat room, that I listened to for a few hours. It was probably 60% teasing sexual innuendo and banter, and 30% catty remarks and snark about what was going on, but some of the other 10% were alerting the others about what was going on and some could fairly be characterized as collusion. I don't know if that chat room even exists anymore, isn't that obsolete technology? So everything that was really going on, wasn't visible on the talk pages and noticeboards. Obviously there are nearly limitless possibilities for informal backchannels, and no point in trying the challenge them.--Africangenesis (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)