Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:36, 24 February 2010

archive historical revision - rather than explicitly creating an archive page (which needlessly copies data), this neatly links to the last revision before removing archived sections. It also serves as a handy marker to the exact point where archival occurred in the history. archive, 1/25/2009

I am detaching from all activity on the global warming pages. The long term pro-AGW POV pushers and their admin enablers can have their way. After all, some POVs are more important than the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thanks for the good advice, UnitAnode. :-) ATren (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be amused to see something that looks like censorship. As if the whole world didn't know there's a scandal involved in glacial retreat estimates such as those in Retreat of glaciers since 1850.

But I decided to collect views on improving the entire suite of GW articles. I have a concern that there are many ways to make improvements to these articles but only one way to keep them the same. This results in a) division of effort and b) large numbers of editors abandoning the effort.

Some active editors are prepared to show their support or opposition to movement in specific directions, at a chart on my TalkPage here. If you would like to encourage this effort then please consider adding your name to the parts you think most important. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea. I may chime in this weekend. ATren (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am detaching from all activity on the global warming pages

Really? The evidence is against you. Anyway, I came here to say: you and I clearly have rather different ideas of politeness and civility; your very recent contributions speak for you. Should you have cause for a rethink, you are welcome back. Should you not, please don't darken my talkpage again William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I only came back to respond to your charges that I not only hold vendettas, but I also "accuse you of much the same", both of which are completely unfounded. My problem with you is your biting, condescending attitude, which is on display whenever you engage someone who disagrees with you. You've been doing that for years, it's flared up more in the past week or so, and it's disruptive. My problem has nothing to do with vengeance; its your disruption on a very contentious topic that I object to.

Why don't you look at those reports on the probation noticeboard and think about it for a minute: I didn't file a single report against you, yet you had at least 3 filed. Do they all hold vendettas too? How about all those who commented on those reports? UnitAnode, MarkNutley, GoRight, ZP5, TGL, CoM, AlexHarvey, Lar have all chimed in on your latest incivility thread. Are they all wrong and you're right? Oh wait, they're probably all "septic" so not worthy of consideration, so how about Scjessey, Hipocrite, ChrisO, TS, 2/0? Even as those editors defended you on that probation page, they all included some concession to the incivility charge. Yet you continue to claim complete innocence.

Really, WMC, who has cause to rethink?

As for "darkening your talk page", I will respect that request up to a point -- if you accuse me of something like vengeance again, I still reserve the right to ping your talkpage for explanation (which, by the way, I still have not received, other than a claim that I'm a fool not to notice it myself). ATren (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. He never listens. --Michael C. Price 22:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to look at what ZP5 is worth, then look at his contribs. Ditto TGL; and the others. The answer will soon be very obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean? But you knew that anyway. --Michael C. Price 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC, we all know what you think of the so-called skeptics, but what about the others? Does your lack of worthiness judgement extend to Scjessey, Hipocrite, ChrisO, TS, and 2/0, all of whom expressed at least some level of disagreement with your incivility? ATren (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Those you've just listed are sensible people. Are you interested in discussing their opinions, or do you just wish to cherry-pick quotes from them? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, how do you respond to their concerns about your civility? ATren (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work on improving the graph

On the 2over0 talk page ... Although the whole section seems like it belongs somewhere else better. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like the way the graph turned out; I may turn it into an essay at some point, or at least post it on my user page. In reality, I was probably a little hard on 2/0 - I don't think he intends to be uneven, sometimes it just turns out that way - but the overall principle still applies and if it wasn't 2/0 it'd be someone else. ATren (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK ... well for your stats and evidence work ... I suggest you look at these principles Receiver_operating_characteristic to gage enforcement actions and outcomes. You might find some intresting results for signal to noise and effectiveness. These are virtualy invalid for GW because of truth issues. When applying ROC binary claisifers, the issue isn't linear or Cartesian relationships as much as being able to effectively rank the data in an index with a meaningful threshold. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good call :)

It`ll drive us nuts in the end :) will you be giving up on this as well? And is it possible to get feedback from you on this once in a while? Cheers man. --mark nutley (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I've not been successful in detaching entirely. ;-) I will probably work on the evidence here and there, though I just got really busy IRL so it will be sporadic. As for your new article, I won't get involved much there (I've taken ALL GW articles off my watchlist). I've dipped my toes into the articles recently and it's far too contentious for the amount of free time I have. Maybe once I'm retired I can spend hours and ours debating minutia that should be straightforward, but not while I still work, and retirement is a loooong way off. Anyway, good luck. ATren (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri

Thanks. As you can see, I have not edited Pachauri's page in a while as that is indeed inappropriate.

I must say, though, that I find the whole discussion quite bizarre. Kim Dabelstein and Will Connelley come up with ever new excuses why something that has now been discussed in every newspaper should not be on Misplaced Pages. Richard Tol (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Every" newspaper? I was opposed to the COI inclusion initially because the coverage was limited and breaking news, by now that isn't as much the case. Opposed to "Jumping the gun" is the correct description. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, but an encyclopedia, we describe events after the fact, once it is possible to seperate according to weight. We aren't supposed to follow the latest news-cycle, or record every little event that happens, we are supposed to describe factually what is notable and has long term impacts/importance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RTol, it's an ongoing problem. Kim and I have had fierce debates on this, and I believe Kim's position is very inconsistent across articles. He obviously disagrees. But I've largely detached from those debates -- the articles are off my watchlist -- because it's just too much trouble trying to endlessly debate the obvious. I don't care enough.

As for you, make your points on the talk page, stay civil, be patient, and learn to use dispute resolution. Stay away from the mainpage or they will pounce on you. Just by virtue of having criticized Pachauri, you're wearing a target on your chest (as you've seen in the COI report) so keep it professional and don't given them the rope to hang you with. ATren (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On the plus side, at least we can spell William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: "even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages" Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

on top of which comments about pots and kettles come to mind... --BozMo talk 22:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

...but what do you expect from a bunch of idiots and yahoos? ATren (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop disrupting my attempt to have MN follow the BLP policy on 2/0 by mixing it up with WMCs incivility. Feel free to file a report on WMC's incivility and I promise not to dirsupt it with comments about MNs failure to follow policy. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested he strike the question, he complied. You asked that he remove it entirely (politely! ;-)) and he complied. The BLP concern is done. But realize that I've been following the WMC/MN interaction for a while now, and WMC has been hostile towards MN. If you're going to bring formal complaints against MN, I reserve the right to respond with evidence of WMC's incivility towards MN. ATren (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thus, if you're going to bring formal complaints against WMC, I reserve the right to respond with evidence of multiple editor's violations of BLP against the RL WMC. Hipocrite (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop pointing out WMC's behavioral problems. The admins are obviously aware that WMC is calling people "idiots" and "yahoos" and have apparently decided it's not actionable. Repeating them over and over is unlikely to get them to change their mind. Let's move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done with that sham of a probation page. In fact, I think it's probably time to step back and do an in-depth search of his entire history, to show how aggressive he's been for years now. I know there are several hundreds of abusive diffs in there that will show his history; it's time to document them all and take this to arbcom. Clearly other methods have failed. ATren (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU renaming proposal

I have been starting to work with ChrisO and Hipocrite on a proposal related to renaming the CRU hacking incident article. Based on your comments at the Cla68's RfC it seems that you might be willing to sign on to this proposal. We are intending to approach people on their user pages to try and build some momentum and for this proposal and hopefully build a growing set of editors who are willing to accept this as a reasonable compromise and then stand together to defend it. Please stop by and weigh-in with your opinion and feel free to sign on if you are willing to help push this and defend it. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will watch it. I support the "email controversy" wording, as I've indicated in the RFC. I have never argued for Climategate in the title (or if I did, I wasn't too strongly attached to it). ATren (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC

Eh, either the diff you provide here doesn't qualify as incivility, or it does, but then so would bringing it to the attention of an admin (after all, isn't the section meant to demonstrate that, e.g., snark is all-too-typical of WMC's style?). Just a thought. Sorry about all the frustration relating to these pages.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be interpreted that way. Feel free to remove it if you like. ATren (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No I'll leave that up to you, if you decide you want to. I'm not super worried about it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider

Consider two scenarios:

1. An editor, perceiving a slight, requests action from a friendly but uninvolved administrator. The admin, trusting the editor, performs said action without fully reviewing the situation.
2. An editor, perceiving a slight, requests action from an uninvolved administrator whom they consider biased. The admin, wishing to avoid the taint of bias in both his public perceptions and personal self-image, performs said action without fully reviewing the situation.

I contend that in each scenario, the admin in question has abused the tools and the community's trust. As both motivation and due diligence are difficult to demonstrate and easy to misinterpret, please accept my apologies for not acting on your request here. The situation is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.

On an unrelated issue, I hold a strong anti-censorship stance and tend to reflect that in management of my talkpage on this website. This, however, was over the line and I have refactored it. Please help me keep that page a place where all editors are welcome to contribute. If you would like to amend or remove that comment, please feel free. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The refactoring is fine, but note that my statement was in response to "the pack is on the scent". How is referring to editors as pack animals less insulting than a bully reference?

And thank you for your considered response. As I have said, I have never doubted your good faith, even though I've been disappointed by some of your actions. ATren (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

The discussions at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: , , . - 2/0 (cont.) 03:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I fundamentally object to this warning on every level.

Addressing the diffs:

The first diff was a bit sarcastic, but was in response to claims that spurious attacks on a major religion is somehow acceptable as long as you have a good edit history. Mastcell got no such warning for making that questionable statement in an unrelated thread.

The second diff is entirely on topic as it discusses Awickert's claim that 10% article edits should be used against TGL. I simply pointed out (politely) that percentages may be skewed on articles with extensive talk page debate. How is this not relevant?

The third diff is criticism your actions, specifically relating to that very case where you topic-banned TGL. Again, why is that not relevant in the section discussing TGL?

Given the level of combativeness on that page, I find it astounding that you would cite those three diffs, 2 of which were completely relevant and only one which might be considered a bit snarky. It has become clear to me that you have no interest in correcting your uneven enforcement (I'm still waiting for you to justify JPat's block, and that was weeks ago), and I will therefore no longer appeal to you directly. ATren (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I intended this as more a notification that everyone using the RE page as yet another venue for pointless bickering has been less than productive. I apologize for not making this clear, and for failing to mention that I was issuing a general statement to over a dozen editors. The comment on a religion was inappropriate, as has been made clear (one can hope). I whole heartedly concur that the level of combativeness on that page is a problem, and I hope that constraining discussion narrowly to the issue at hand (including providing context) will help tamp some of that down. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I happened to see it before you sent it out widely. I agree that the enforcement page has become unwieldy, though I suspect we disagree on the reasons for that. We'll leave it at that, since it seems we now have another uninvolved admin helping out (Geni) and that may improve things. ATren (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're Eligible

Ding ding ding. It has come to my attention that you are eligible for membership in BOOF and entitled to all benefits of membership therein. Best regards. JPatterson (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

:-) ATren (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Separate article proposal

I've actually been giving this a fair bit of thought since I first became aware of the discussion on GoRight's talk page. For a little while now, I have been convinced that we should break up the article and move toward a full summary style approach. In the recent "cut down" of the article by Nightmote and Hipocrite, I felt that too much good information was lost. I voiced my concern at the time, but it was clear early on that the slash-job had broad support so I didn't make a big issue out of it. So you and I are probably on a similar page, but perhaps one of us is reading the same words backwards! Although I think the "controversy" aspect of the CRU incident is probably worthy of its own article, I remain deeply concerned that it will be made into a POV fork. Before I could "sign on" to such a proposal, this fear would need to be allayed. I think the incident can now support a number of articles, though I have not yet given any consideration to titles:

• Hacking incident - shorter article, broadly defined.
  • Document specifics - substantive quotes from emails (not cherry-picked soundbites).
  • Controversy - use of documents by skeptics to promote their position, response by scientific community, war of names ("Climategate", "Swifthack").
  • Investigations - covering all inquiries, investigations, "resolutions", etc.

I am not sure if you agree with this approach, but I'd be willing to discuss this with you if you like. I've just watchlisted this page if you want to continue the discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think four articles is perhaps overkill, but it would be better than what we have. I personally think 2 would be better: one to deal with the "hacking", and another to deal with the "contents" - both would detail the respective controversies and investigations.

And I disagree with controversy being purely "use of documents by skeptics to promote their position" - that is one aspect, but non-skeptics have also been critical (Monbiot's criticism comes to mind, because he is an avid critic of the skeptics, and he expressed concern about the content). From my view, there is both rational and irrational criticism of the content; both should be represented in the "controversy" article. ATren (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we obviously come from very different directions, so we are bound to disagree on the inherent nature of the cause of the controversy. I'm not sure why Monbiot's comments are relevant here - He's really just a writer/activist type. I really do feel that the "controversy" (what you would refer to as "Climategate") is just one of a number of consequences of the hacking incident (the investigations being another, with one or two "lesser" consequences that aren't notable in their own right). Our opinions on this may differ too greatly for us to find a meaningful compromise, but I'm going to keep an open mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I mention Monbiot specifically because his critical opinion is frequently cited on skeptic BLPs, so his criticism of the email content is both relevant and compelling. In fact, I recently tried to remove a Monbiot section from a skeptic BLP and it was reverted by pro-AGW editors, so in my view that makes his opinion fair game on all articles in this topic. This is one of those examples of what I believe to be a double standard on these pages, where criticism from a writer like Monbiot is absolutely accepted when he criticizes skeptics but absolutely rejected when he criticizes proponents. It can't be both ways if it is to be truly NPOV. ATren (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the climate change topic in general, since I have restricted myself almost exclusively to the CRU article. To my mind, Monbiot is nothing more than a "pundit" when it comes to this field, so if it were up to me I would exclude his comments from the entire topic (whichever "side" they supported). -- Scjessey (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been my contention for a while now that the sourcing standard is much different for skeptics than for proponents of AGW, and Monbiot was one example I frequently cited. His opinion is prominent in a few GW skeptic articles, and several editors have refused to remove it, or even to reduce its prominence. At the same time, criticism directed at Pachauri, Connolley, RealClimate and the scientists involved in Climategate was largely suppressed by those same editors. At one point, I think, the allegations against Pachauri were reported in 5-10 major newspapers around the globe but pro-AGW editors refused to include it, while some of those same editors were steadfast about retaining less prominent and not-as-reliably sourced criticism on the skeptic pages. It is this imbalance which has turned many previously-uninvolved editors against those half-dozen-or-so editors who have dominated the AGW pages for years now. It makes us look like skeptics, when in fact, we are simply addressing imbalances resulting from years of having the same few editors control the articles for years. ATren (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the criticism directed against climate change scientists is mostly fueled by people who are unable or unwilling to accept the undeniable truth of anthropogenic climate change (I think the term "global warming" is bollocks, and I prefer not to use it). The plain fact is that science overwhelmingly confirms the climate change hypothesis, and so opponents of anthropogenic climate change theories represent a minority view. Misplaced Pages articles should reflect this fact, but the sad fact is that there is always going to be very little reporting by reliable sources unless some sort of mistake/scandal is involved - not a fair reflection of reality. Wikipedians should edit with the systemic bias toward controversy by the mainstream media in mind, but you regard this approach as "imbalanced". Regretfully, I have to disagree with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there certainly is a faction of denial in the editing, but there are also moderates who oppose the current status quo, and promptly get labelled "denialists" or "skeptics". So uninvolved editors (who would oppose excesses on both sides) get chased away and the only ones left are those who are passionate on the issue (on both sides). I've seen this personally, as I've been frequently labelled skeptic or denialist even though I know that I am neither. So maybe it's a clearer issue to me personally, because I know my own position on this issue, and yet I am still labelled as something I'm not because I oppose the status quo as being inherently unbalanced.

As for the question of science, this is much much more than a purely scientific issue. There is a huge political component that cannot be ignored. It would be like saying abortion is purely a medical procedure. We cannot ignore the political aspects of this issue, including public opinion and controversies. You may view climategate as a complete non-issue, but it has been reported VERY widely and there are many responsible people asking questions about those emails. We can't ignore that. For me personally, I absolutely do NOT like that people are using this controversy to discredit the entire idea of AGW, but then again, as a pro-science person, I am also concerned when I see evidence that scientists are hiding data or trying to manipulate the peer review process. This latter point doesn't make me a denier, but expressing such a sentiment around here will quickly get me labelled as such. That's a problem. If someone like me is getting hounded off this topic as a POV pusher, then something is seriously wrong. ATren (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of scientists trying to hide anything. I do see evidence of scientists getting pissed off enough to withhold data from genuine denialists who have hounded them with an exorbitant number of data requests. I agree on all your points about it being a political issue more than a science one, but surely you would agree that the mainstream media has grossly exaggerated the scale of the matter by allowing themselves to be fed by denialist claptrap? With respect to being "hounded off this topic", I understand completely. It is extremely difficult to remain neutral in a "with us or against us" atmosphere. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the mainstream media has been exaggerating. This has been a huge firestorm among skeptics and the public, and the media is simply covering what they see. See, for example, this article, in which "a distinguished panel of science luminaries" concluded that the recent controversies have marred the reputations of climate scientists. Note that they didn't say whether the controversies held merit, only that the controversies had undermined the credibility. That's what climategate is to me: that a few insignificant transgressions by a handful of scientists has undermined the work of all climate scientists, in the view of the public. That's real, and that's the controversy. The irony is, denial of the controversy has made it even worse, because the public sees it as "sweeping it under the rug" -- in fact, that very phrase is used in the Science News article. Then they come to Misplaced Pages and see Climategate redirects to a story primarily about the data breach, with little discussion of the controversy. Then they discover that pundits have been regularly criticizing Misplaced Pages for having a former RealClimate contributor dictate much of the content on these articles. Do you not see how bad that looks, for both the climate science AND Misplaced Pages?

There was principle from the recent WMC-Abd arbcom decision that went something like this: "admins should avoid the appearance of impropriety". WMC was outraged at this suggestion, but it is perhaps the most important thing to come out of that decision, because isn't that exactly what Climategate is? The "appearance of impropriety"? Climate scientists and Misplaced Pages climate editors both need to learn this lesson: that sometimes it's better to take extra steps to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing, even if you really believe what you're doing is OK. Until they learn that lesson, we will continue to have "Climategates" and Misplaced Pages content wars.

In any case, this has drifted off topic. I respect your disagreement of my position, and I hope you respect mine. I also hope you now realize that my opposition is not in any way denialism, and if you've mislabeled me perhaps you should re-evaluate some of the other so-called "skeptics" on those pages. For myself, I think I'm backing out of this debate again. Too much angst for something I'm really not that intersted in. :-) ATren (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I know you are in the process of preparing some sort of dispute resolution mechanism at your sandbox page, as you state here, but in the meantime would you mind toning down any flinging of accusations like here? You might also be interested in what ArbCom has had to say about casting aspersions. I am (mostly) on a wikibreak and have no intention of following up on this, but the accusations of bad faith are part of why climate change articles are on probation (though that is Lar's talkpage to manage as he pleases). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are specific comments in response to a direct question by Tony. Tony asked why the Singer "martian" claim was still in the article, and I gave my take on the situation: that the claim in fact doesn't belong but such claims are blocked from removal by the pro-AGW editors. This is absolutely true -- just look at the way WMC, Raul, and others fought to keep that completely non-notable claim in the article intro. As far as I'm concerned, the diffs I provided prove that point, but if you like I will provide more diffs to support it. I've already collected a bunch on my talk page, and I'm working to collect more.

But the point is, this is not an out-of-the blue accusation of ownership, it was a direct response to an argument: Tony implied that the claim's continued existence in the article was somehow proof that the text was not inherently bad; my response is that it's a completely spurious claim that is only there because AGW editors do not allow removal of such claims, no matter how non-notable, which actually supports my point rather than disproving it.

I am preparing evidence when I have time. It is a daunting task. I'm actually writing software to download entire page histories and provide a more efficient workflow for analyzing and collecting diffs. It's very time consuming. As requested, I've stopped making direct accusations, but that doesn't mean I can't comment on existing topics. My comments were entirely relevant to the topic, addressed editor behavior (not editors themselves), provided some supporting diffs, and only made direct accusations in response to questions where those accusations are completely relevant to the response.

So I don't think I did anything wrong. But feel free to file a request if you think otherwise. ATren (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)