User talk:WavePart

Welcome!

Please sign your messages here using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Archives: A discussion about a fallacious block.

At the risk of breaking Godwin's Law...
... to follow up on your Hitler analogy here: not quite. It's more like saying that if you encounter another failed artist who rode to power on a wave of nationalist and racialist resentment, and he's demanding the Sudetenland, you might in the back of your mind think twice about appeasing him. It may be that the similarities between him and Hitler are just a coincidence, that this second dictator really does want peace in our time, and that you've failed to assume good faith. But it's not unreasonable to notice a certain pattern, and arguably not unreasonable to act on it. MastCell Talk 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhm, sure, except for it not being at all like that. If I had violated some rules of editing, or standards of conduct, or been anything other than polite, respectful, and trying to discuss toward a NPOV compromise, then perhaps your extension of the analogy would apply.  If you read the base rate fallacy page that I linked to that comment, you'll see what I mean in that noticing a particular pattern in the guilty does not say anything about how often that pattern means people ARE guilty.  This is basic logic (but unfortunately a named fallacy because the mental error is so commonly made).  I encourage you to not be one of the people making this error.  WavePart (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the theoretical case you're making. But be honest with me: have you used other named accounts to edit Wikipedia in the past? MastCell Talk 00:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already said many times I am a clean start user. WavePart (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall seeing that admission. That might have avoided this whole situation. Would you consider disclosing the identity of your previous account to a functionary, who can then verify that there are no problems with it being banned or blocked or something? A trusted current or former arb, or a checkuser or other person who is identified to the Foundation to handle private information responsibly. The Wordsmith Communicate 01:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'd prefer not per privacy. This would only be necessary for an admin position, which I do not seek.  (As far as I'm aware, there is no basis for assuming it's required practice in any other case, nor should it be.)  For the record I was not under any bans or blocks.  WavePart (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also for the record, I could have just as easily pretended to be a newb rather than admitting to being a clean start. I assure you I'm smart enough to be able to pretend to know nothing.  Penalizing for simple honesty obviously makes no sense.  It makes more sense to simultaneously encourage honesty and allow privacy, and I will do what I can to defend those principles.  WavePart (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your honesty. The reason I asked you to disclose it to a functionary is that those people are trusted by the Wikimedia Foundation to handle private information with care. If you don't want to, though, I accept that. It would just make me feel better if someone confirmed that you're a good user, not a banned one. The Wordsmith Communicate 01:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a person who generally acts as a privacy advocate. I'm not prone to trusting people with my private information (even if vouched for by a foundation) when I can just as easily not have to extend that trust.  The fact that there are many people who feel similarly is probably why policy does not require this.  In addition, nothing about my article editing behavior should indicate to you that I am even worthy of a ban, so there should be no ground for your ongoing concern.  It continues to concern me that you approach other editors (or just me?) with a "you should prove you're not a problem" attitude.  This is not a good trait to have in any authority figure.  Perhaps you need a few people to assume you're guilty of something you didn't do a few times, and then you'll change your mind after a little experience.  WavePart (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

← It's been obvious to anyone with any experience on this site that you're not a new editor (you've indicated as much, and thank you for your honesty). You've adopted a tone of moral outrage about being accused of sockpuppetry. But to me it looks like you're attacking people for (correctly) intuiting that you're not a new user. All that stuff about base case fallacies, and how your familiarity with Wikipedia doesn't mean anything - it's nonsense, because in fact you are a returning user. Others interpreted those signs correctly. We have your assurance that you're not an abusive alternate account. But against your word, consider that you are a returning editor, using an alternate account, and immediately jumping into a highly active controversy which has been beset with some of the most severe sockpuppetry this site has seen. Under those circumstances, it should be at least comprehensible that people suspected you of possibly abusive sockpuppetry. I know that this cannot have come as a surprise to someone with your experience of Wikipedia, so the feigned incomprehension and moral outrage is a bit off-putting. Do you see where I'm coming from? MastCell Talk 05:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have experience being a productive editor. Assuming people are abusive sock puppets because they have editing experience is like assuming people are murderers because they learned to use a gun while serving in the military.  If you do NOT have moral outrage at people being treated as guilty of doing something wrong for nothing more than possessing knowledge, then the moral failure there is yours, not mine.  WavePart (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, it seems you also had very high wiki editing competence in your first edits (despite not announcing any prior editing experience), understanding a number of finer details of wiki syntax and protocol within minutes of your first edit, and you were editing politically controversial articles within your first four days of joining. But you see, people weren't acting paranoid here in 2006.  We need to dial back the paranoia, and go back to treating new accounts like yours was treated.  WavePart (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, 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)

A discussion about some of your changes
Hi WavePart, there’s a discussion here about the changes you recently made to the race and intelligence article, some of which have recently been undone. I thought I should let you know about this, in case you want to participate there.

By the way, I’m sorry if I seemed rude to you when you first became involved in this article. Based on the way you made several large changes to the article without discussing them first, you gave me the impression that you were someone who had shown up there just for the purpose of inserting your point of view into it. This is something that happens to the article fairly often, so it’s easy to assume a newly-involved editor is another example of this even in situations where it isn’t actually the case. Based on your subsequent edits, though, I can see that I was wrong to assume this about you, and I apologize for that. I think it’ll be possible for you to work collaboratively with the rest of us on this article, so I hope you’ll continue to contribute there. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)