User talk:Rameses

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful and would recommend to all newcomers to Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 02:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Common Good

I moved your comment from Template:Election box metadata to Talk:The Common Good --Henrygb 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

India Pale Ale

Sorry about that. I meant to undo the last edit you made... I didn't realize that you had several edits before it. The reason I removed the last edit was because the sentence was about modern breweries, but it looked like the link discussed breweries in the 6th century BC. On retrospect, it looks like that revision was in error to. I'll undo the revert. -- Big Brother 1984 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I don't see a 3RR warning here, so you'd better have one: see: WP:3RR William M. Connolley 09:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why?? Rameses 18:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

William, I read the 3RR policy and I have not performed more than three reverts. Yet you have blocked me anyway - this is an abuse of your power and further evidence of your censoring of dissenting views on Global Warming. I would like to have a review of your actions through the proper Wikipedia process - would you set that up or do you want me to do it?

You have 4 very obvious reverts at GW. Quite why you think the rules don't apply to you I don't know William M. Connolley 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I have made one change following extensive discussions over several days. This was reverted by others and I reverted it back only three times. I would still like to have a review of your actions through the proper Wikipedia process - would you set that up or do you want me to do it? -- Rameses 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You have 4 edits today. You admit the last 3 are reverts. The first [1] reinserts the same text as earlier [2] so is also a revert. Goodnight William M. Connolley 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a change only after Very Extensive Discussions (VED) over several days see "Fight this insidious Censorship" . I cannot imagine how much more effort you believe I should have made before making this tiny change? I am giving you one more chance to set up the review of your actions through the proper Wikipedia process. If you do not want to do so, let me know and I will do it myself. -- Rameses 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Need help accumulating evidence

Please feel free to add examples of bias you have encountered by the pro-Global Warming crowd at my page...I am accumulating all of the evidence for various actions throughout Wikipedia for the pages, users, etc and your help with the footwork is appreciated. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you make a user subpage(s), I would be willing to help you. ~ UBeR 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User subpages are subject to the whims of the admins even if those whims are contrary to Wikipedia policy. Data collection must be done very carefully so as to not violate any rules or laws. They hide their actions in numbers of people helping them to split the reverts (thus circumventing 3RR), bury the evidence by crosslinking user pages (which is damn near impossible to find unless by accident you see it), and overwhelm the histories with scores of small edits (not marked as minor which would allow filtering them out) to make patterns of behavior difficult. They know the system and they know how to keep themselves protected. The ONLY way to help Wikipedia from them is to gather solid (non-personally attacking) data and present directly to authorities as high in Wikipedia as possible since the process has failed for 2 years to keep this behavior at bay. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found that out the hard way. Three of my subpages dealing with the infringement of Wikipedia policies by Wikipedia administrators/elected officials were deleted, along with their history. The reason cited was personal attacks (made by some "consensus"), despite the fact I made it quite clear the pages were to be used solely for gathering specific edits made by the user, rather than actually attacking the user. I let the evidence speak for itself (much like it does in Adolf Hitler), but even this is considered too harsh by a select few. Luckily, I salvaged much of what was said and all relevant links. ~ UBeR 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not get to see them (otherwise I'm sure there is plenty I could have copied). One important thing is to be absolutely devoid of commentary. Copy/Paste and the occassional note to clarify the context or reason for inclusion. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony, an example of your above noted circumventing of the 3RR rule is going on currently at [3] right now. Good luck with your radio show - I hope you can get Jimbo Wales to talk on it. Wikipedia needs to do something about these censors particularly after the Essjay scandal. Keep up the good work guys - we'll make Wikipedia NPOV one day. ~ Rameses 04:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley is at his old censorship habits again - this time on an article about a documentary film - The Great Global Warming Swindle. [4] He also makes the rather ominous comment "this thing is set to become another Climate of Mars". This probably refers to the deletion of several pages about Mars climate change, Martian global warming and Solar system warming. ~ Rameses 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on February 22 2007 to Global warming

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a change after Very Extensive Discussions (VED) over several days see "Fight this insidious Censorship" . How much more effort do you believe I should have made before making this tiny change?? -- Rameses 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This administrator, himself, has stated before he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. ~ UBeR 20:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well - that much is clear from his actions. He certainly seems to be trigger-happy with his 3RR's. Now how do I go about getting a Wikipedia review of his practices and whether he should be removed as an Administrator? -- Rameses 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You may Request arbitration. Be weary, however, as many of his peers sit on that committee. It requires a lot of work, time, and evidence. He has had two official complaints reported against him in the past ([6], [7]). In the meantime, you may help gather complaints and other evidences of his misconduct at User:UBeR/WMC. ~ UBeR 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to check out WP:AN/I, or, at at the very least, get a comment from WP:RFC, though I doubt their usefulness. Be assured, however, you are not alone in your dissent of this user. ~ UBeR 02:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Boring

Re [8]. Please stop trolling about admin abuse, unless you intend to do something about it (which you clearly don't). But Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges is the place if you do (which you don't) William M. Connolley 21:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of Wikipedians who would be delighted to see your administratorship revoked. Do not be so arrogant. ~ UBeR 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

More trolling. You too are going to do nothing about it, even though I've provided you a nice link to just the place. Boring William M. Connolley 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

William, I am currently doing my research on your activities. You are the most controversial Administrator I have come across - just how many formal complaints have been lodged against you?? This is going to take a while just to read about your past misdemeanors. Now call me boring again - I find it mildly amusing. lol Rameses 22:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone's the troll, it's William. In his own words, "Boring William M. Connolley." ~ UBeR 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As expected, Rameses has wimped out William M. Connolley 09:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's as if you want to be called upon for your actions, like you already have, which would be too easy. ~ UBeR 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I'd love you or Rameses to put your actions where your mouth is. But you won't. And I'm sure you noticed the happy ending in that last case William M. Connolley 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I would point out the reason that last case was opened (by Mr. Schultz, interestingly enough). "he felt "parole has been imposed more out of a perceived sense of "fairness" ("Hey, it is a bad edit conflict - let's punish all!") than any real need. It does not serve any useful purpose, but instead is used by some users (in particular User:SEWilco, who has a long history of conflict with WMC) to stalk WMC and to claim "violations" even on uncontroversial and trivial edits (e.g. Kyoto protocol)." Somehow I am still trying to understand how THAT qualified in the ArbCom policies and precedents. Another note to point out, that request to re-evaluate the parole came after a failed Admin attempt where much of the opposition cited, among other reservations which have proven true, the fact that there was a standing parole for an admin candidate. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits and AfD activity

Please see my user page, under "Objection 1" and stop pandering conspiracy theory. That is all. Michaelbusch 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT a Theory I have plenty of evidence of this conspiracy to censor all articles relating to global warming. There are also many other editors who are sick of this hi-jacking of Wikipedia. All we ask for is a fair NPOV showing both sides of the debate. Your methods are to delete whatever does not fit your POV. As an example look at what I found on your talk page:

from User talk:Michaelbusch:=I think you'll enjoy this one

Solar system warming Someguy1221 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty bad. Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline. Michaelbusch 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said it is NOT a theory - there is plenty of evidence of a conspiracy to silence the other side of the debate... ~ Rameses 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy. All the editors concerned simply have an interest in maintaining some level of scientific credibility on Wikipedia. Re. the above: Someguy1221 is a friend. He knows that I try to remove pseudoscience, and that I have dealt with your particular case before (see Talk:Mars). All of this is in the open, and not concealed. You confuse people talking to each other with conspiracy.

Your statements claiming that there is a conspiracy against you (or what you call 'the other side of the debate', when there is no debate for there to be different sides of), could be considered personal attacks, which are not tolerated. Further such statements might be reason for a block. You may consider this 'evidence of a conspiracy', but it is not. It is simply me explaining the rules of Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 06:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We shall soon discover all the ails of Wikipedia should Rameses' comments above be considered personal attacks. ~ UBeR 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am being reviewed

Hello, friend. I'd like to inform you of the attacks and claims made by Raul654 to the administrator noticeboard regarding my actions. I whole heartedly believe my actions are just and warranted. Please review the current situation. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are under attack. The more I read of the history of these folks the more I realize that the next step for them is to do RfC and blocks of varying levels. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Family

Regarding your family, I can understand why you are somewhat upset, but if you read WP:SOCK before hand, you might have understood why your editing pattern was problematic and triggered a checkuser. In general, when a group of people are editing from the same machine, it is highly advisable for them not to push the same POV. That should be obvious. JoshuaZ 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I cannot agree with your characterization that we were all "pushing the same POV". My daughter, Persianne, certainly didn't involve herself with global warming. On the other hand, my wife and I are both interested in the global warming debate and would like to contribute to it. I also disagree that family members should not all contribute their views. Your idea is unfair, as it requires that one of us would have to be silent on every topic in which we share similar views. This is against the fundamental right of "Freedom of Speech" and means that Wikipedia does yet not have room for families. This is clearly a situation which will have to be corrected as Wikipedia becomes more widely used and edited by more families worldwide.

In fact, if you read the Global warming pages you will see that they are very much pushing a pro Global Warming POV. Let us take the introduction to Global warming controversy for example: The global warming controversy is a debate about the causes of observed global warming since the mid-20th century, as well as the expected magnitude and consequences of future warming. A major part of the debate centers around what actions, if any, society should take in response to the prospect of future warming. Can you detect any controversy there at all? The wording accepts that there will be future warming without question. By contrast, there are respected scientists who disagree and predict the world will start cooling soon. Even this article which is supposed to be discussing the controversy not the consensus view is heavily biased to the GW POV.

All we were trying to do, was to introduce some NPOV into these articles. There is unfortunately a cartel of GW pushers who have been reverting or deleting anything which does not fit their POV. You can see this in the obviously one sided introduction to Global warming controversy. These people (including some administrators) employ devious tactics to drive any other contributors out of the GW arena. These include edit warring, constant reverting and launching witch hunts against those who object to their tactics. They did this with UBeR and my family recently when UBeR formally requested a checkuser against William M. Connolley. Their witch hunt succeeded - not only did they not get checked - Raul654 abused his Admin status and instantly checkusered (and then smeared) my family instead. Unless the other Administrators are willing to take these allegations seriously this group will continue to get away with their activities with impunity. Already a radio show has exposed these individuals and their activities on Wikipedia - Global Warming see: [9]. Also the leader William M Connolley has had three complaints against him already see:([10], [11], [12]) Please let me know if you are willing to help get this matter seriously looked into. ~ Rameses 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue it's rather difficult for a family not to base themselves on the same set of shared principles and beliefs. To each their own, as the saying goes, I suppose.

The decision to peer into the family's hermitage was made somewhat arbitrarily. I can do nothing but to extend my support, much as they have done to me, as they are my patrons in my quest for equality and quality on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 06:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. The solution then, is to edit different topics. Anyone who was remotely aware of the relevant policies (or even was thinking about this topic in a common-sense fashion) would understand the problem. Furthermore, no form of family privacy violation occured- the only thing that happened what that all the editors were traced back to each other. Rameses then started claiming his family privacy was violated. Now, I can understand how he might feel that way, but to call this "arbitrarily" "perring into the family's hermitage" is just ridiculous. JoshuaZ 06:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Then we must agree to disagree, and leave it at that. ~ UBeR 06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming skeptic userbox

Thought you might be interested in having a userbox on your user page that expresses your skepticism of anthropogenic global warming. It looks like this and will also add you to Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. If you're interested, put the following on your user page:

{{User:Oren0/GWSkeptic}}

Feel free to tell your friends. Thanks! Oren0 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Oren0, I have displayed it on my userpage. Although, I am not entirely skeptical of AGW - I simply don't believe that it is significant yet compared to Solar and cloud/H2O effects. I am of course willing to be swayed by convincing evidence - not by the laughable models that the alarmists are using. All of these models end with the Earth's oceans boiling away or freezing solid within a tiny geologic timespan (a geo-second). How these pseudo-scientists expect us to place our faith in such obviously flawed models, I really don't know? Especially when they fix them to reflect their alarmist ideology. It reminds me of the 1970's - the Ice Age is coming! alarmism. I look forward to chatting with you more in the future. Regards, ~ Rameses 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The All Seeing Eye

Thank you for the first ever All Seeing Eye. I am very pleasured to receive this monumental award. Of course, I do so on the behalf of all Wikipedians who strive for a better Wikipedia based on quality, equality, and fairness. I was surprised, because I did not have my "Awards" subpage on my watchlist, though I thought I did. Together, we can make a better Wikipedia. Again, thank you. ~ UBeR 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the award

I am grateful to know you appreciate my contribution to Wikipedia. Please join my effort to produce a better outline for the Global warming controversy article found at User:RonCram/AGWControversySandbox. I need more links to reliable sources on many of the issues. I also need to work on making it NPOV. The Warmers who said they were going to help have not helped so right now it probably looks pretty POV to them. RonCram 13:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. IntelligenceSquared held an interesting debate on Global Warming. Based on the votes of the audience, those who said it was not a crisis won the debate. I thought you might be interesting in reading about it. [13]RonCram 17:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Connolley using Wikipedia to blog?

One administrator thinks so. ~ UBeR 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtedly he is. Although the term blog is too honest a term for what he is doing. A blog is an openly acknowledged opinion piece. What William Connolley is doing on Wikipedia is much murkier and less openly honest. He is controlling the global warming and the anti-global warming articles to push his POV and stifle all information which goes against it. This is destructive to the very fabric of Wikipedia itself. I have lost a great deal of my faith in the information on Wikipedia as a result of finding that there are administrators like Connolley blatantly controlling important sections of OUR world encyclopedia. The war for Neutrality, Truth and Fairness has begun. We can only be vigilant and hope that truth wins out in the end. ~ Rameses 05:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out User:UBeR/Contravention, possibly to be used in a request for comment. Need diffs and supporters. ~ UBeR 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguing against the notion of anthropogenic global warming makes you a conspiracy theorist?

According to this article you are. Vote to delete this nonsense here. Quite obviously the article violates notability (a few journalist may have classified it as such), NPOV, verifiability (few sources actually concurring with the article), and POV forking. ~ UBeR 05:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Scientific data archiving

Please take a look at this Talk page, especially the part on "pseudoscience" and William's reverts. The POV of certain editors is preventing them from objectively dealing with the facts. The concepts involved are not difficult but they do take a little investment of time to understand. You may need to spend some time in the Pseudoscience article to be fully comfortable. I hope you are able to find the time to help out. Thanks! RonCram 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's always nice to know that work is appreciated. Thanks for your kind comments. -- Leland McInnes 19:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for violating the 3RR on Global warming in conjunction with User:Britannia. Checkuser has previously established that both accounts are being run by the same person, so they are being treated as the same account. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My wife and I are not the same person. Unless Wikipedia has published a new definition of a family, I politely request you unblock me immediately. ~ Rameses 02:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal the block, then post the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. It should be clear, however, that I seriously doubt that there is more than one person posting from your IP address; and considering that you and the account you say is your wife's have been blocked before for jointly edit-warring, you can't say that you haven't been warned. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not married or part of a family. However, I can tell you that it is not unusual for people to be married, nor is it unusual for married couples to use the same computer in the same house particularly for internet use. Also, last time we were blocked I went to the trouble of appealing on family grounds to the ombudsman - who didn't even bother responding to my appeal. So, no I do not think I will bother with your non functional appeals process. Wikipedia will one day have to wake up and realize many people are members of a family........ and they often share similar interests. ~ Rameses 15:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia realizes that people are part of families, and that multiple members of a family will sometimes want to edit Wikipedia; and in such cases, family members are advised to avoid jointly editing in controversial topics, because it's quite likely that they will be seen as sockpuppets or meatpuppets. This has happened before, and will no doubt happen again. It's happened to you--twice--and hopefully you will not let it happen again, otherwise, your block(s) will be lengthier. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful to see that you understand the situation and are sympathetic to the plight of families caught up in Wikipedia's family exclusionary rules. ~ Rameses 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Then allow me to help clarify the situation for you - we don't believe you. Your claim that your "wife" is also editing on exactly the same topic from the same IP as you is self-serving and not credible. Not to mention that it's been tried before. We will be treating you as known sockpuppet accounts. Raul654 13:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

martian global warming

You're on record bewailing the "death" of the martian global warming page as it was subsumed into climate of mars. I'm looking to fill out the *non* global warming sections of climate of mars and get the whole article to a size where breaking martian global warming back out would be permissible under the rules. Already the fun is beginning as Mr. William Connolly is intent on neutering the science so that it will fit his preferred political narrative (instead of the more scientific "we don't know for sure" that had been used to this point). His problem is ultimately with wikipedia as its rules are not going to let him keep down patient editors who build out pages properly.

Anyway, come on over, add a few k of real meat to the climate article that has nothing to do with warming, and stick around for the fireworks. TMLutas 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiPropaganda - WMC & his GW POV Censors are Finally Exposed on CBS

At last the world is coming to know of the WikiPropaganda which we have been fighting for years. See: [14] ~~ Rameses (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of Wikipropaganda

In July 2008, the CBS News website carried a story titled "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming" in which Lawrence Solomon exposed the control exercised by Connolley over Wikipedia articles related to Global Warming. Solomon wrote: "by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore." Solomon further alleged: "Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements."

Connolley's Censorship Over Global Warming Articles Brings Wikipedia into Disrepute

Solomon specifically charged Connolley with flouting wikipedia rules: "Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favors." Solomon provided proof of Connolley's ruthless subversion of the rules: "“Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see."

Finally Solomon condemned Wikipedia's credibility on Global Warming stating categorically: "Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding."

Edits to William M. Connelley article

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Raul654 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What I added is shown above. It is sourced from an article published on CBS News. It is a prominent publication specifically about William Connolley and therefore merits a place on his wikipage. ~~ Rameses (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipropaganda

Wikipropaganda is a new composite word (from Wiki(pedia) and propaganda) meaning "propaganda executed via control exercised over Wikipedia articles on a particular subject area." Wikipedia is an online free encyclopedia supposedly open to the public for editing and therefore theoretically assumed to be unbiased. Wikipropaganda is a word that therefore denies the very basis of Wikipedia's worldwide acceptance as a useful source of reliable information.

The word "wikipropaganda" was first brought to prominence and possibly also created by Lawrence Solomon on July 8, 2008 in his article of the same name, published in National Review Online. This article condemned the control over Global Warming and Climate Change articles on Wikipedia by a few individuals causing strong bias toward the Global Warming alarmists viewpoint. This article was reprinted on the CBS News website. Following this exposure wikipropaganda has now entered widespread usage with a Google search returning over 4,900 hits on July 31, 2008.

First Accusations of Wikipropaganda

On July 8, 2008 at 6:00 AM, the National Review Online website carried a story titled "Wikipropaganda" in which Lawrence Solomon exposed the control exercised by Connolley over Wikipedia articles related to Global Warming. Solomon wrote: "by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore." Solomon further alleged: "Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements."

Connolley's Censorship Over Global Warming Articles Brings Wikipedia into Disrepute

Solomon specifically charged Connolley with flouting wikipedia rules: "Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favors." Solomon provided proof of Connolley's ruthless subversion of the rules: "“Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see."

Finally Solomon condemned Wikipedia's credibility on Global Warming stating categorically: "Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding."

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on William Connolley. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not "attacking" WMC, I simply quoted a source published on the CBS News website. This article "Wikipropaganda" is the most notability William Connolley has ever garnered. Frankly your wholesale deletion of my well referenced work amounts to exactly the type of conduct which you and William Connolley are accused of in the said article "Wikipropaganda" published on the CBS News website. If you do not stop censoring this valid and well referenced contribution I will have to file a complaint against you. ~~ Rameses (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Since you've re-created the wikipropaganda article despite my above warning, I've blocked you. Raul654 (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My "Wikipropaganda" article is a legitimate article with well referenced sources (including the CBS News website) about a genuine new word with a specific meaning. What you are doing is abusing your powers in exactly the manner described as wikipropaganda. You are a wikipropagandist (this may be the first instance of the use of this extended term). I will be taking this abuse of your powers against my rights to create valid articles further. ~~ Rameses (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Which "above warning" - you gave no warning regarding the "Wikipropaganda" article. ~~ Rameses (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Article deletions should be done through the regular and specified manners, namely discussions, not trough blocking its author. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rameses (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My edits were well referenced valid information on a new term or concept that is rapidly entering mainstream usage as can be checked with a simple google search for "wikipropaganda" - Raul654 is a known ally of William Connolley who is a subject of the CBS News Article "Wikipropaganda" and is simply trying to suppress this information exactly as the article suggests they do, please read the CBS News article at the centre of this matter: [15]. Raul654 also blocked me for the new article "Wikipropaganda" without prior warning despite his statement that he did give one for this article. For proof of their prior collusion please see (links in this section may be stale and difficult to follow partly as a result of later deletions by Raul654 and WMC: [16]

Decline reason:

You were blocked as a consequence of your own actions, not the actions of others. An unblock request is unlikely to be successful when it does not discuss the actions that caused the block. If you choose to make another unblock request it should address your intentions with regard to including unencyclopaedic information for the purpose of, at best, pushing a point of view or, at worst, simply trawling for drama. — CIreland (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Luckily I managed to find the link to Harrassment by UBeR - this shows that Raul654 launched a complaint against UBeR just to deflect attention from Willaim Connolley's wrongdoings: [17] Here is the actual link: [18]

Thanks

Thanks for the award. I certainly try to fight for a WP:NPOV when I see clear bias, and it is nice to have that effort recognized. --GoRight (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks from me too! I love the design of the award. Kelly ^hi! 18:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Global Cooling

Rameses,

I tried to email you to congratulate you on your stance against the propoganda machine of Billy Con-all which is wrecking the reputation of wikipedia for balanced articles. Having viewed his antics for some time I am quite convinced he is working for some well-paid oil company trying to spread the message that "the biggest problem we face is too much oil", in the vain hope that politicians will never ask the question "just how much oil is left before our civilisation hits the buffers?".

Compared to Billy, Exxon mobile are saints, because they are honest about wanting to drill as much oil as possible. In contrast, Billy is quite clearly being paid to pretend he is an environmentalists in order to ensure that Exxon will be able to pump every last drop of oil out the ground with only the feablest of objections from the Exxon-mobil financed "environmental" lobby.

Basically, just count me in!

Bugsy (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Satellite temperature measurements

I would welcome your input to the discussion related to the new public domain image of RSS and UAH global temperature anomaly data here: Satellite Temperature Measurements -- Update the Graphic. Thank you. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we talk

Rameses, can you email me to discuss a project.Bugsy (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Wikiproganda on Global Warming

I have nominated Wikiproganda on Global Warming, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiproganda on Global Warming. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Zvn (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Schulz‎. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Verbal chat 11:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. In the past I have seen that Stephan Schulz and William Connolley & Co. often used to do extensive canvassing to their partisans and often succeeded with their votestacking. I was merely trying to let interested people know (as shown below). However, now that I am aware of these rules, could you kindly let me know how many friendly notices are "limited" and how to ensure they are "nonpartisan"? All the editors I know well would tend to have similar views. On the other hand, the editors who I know with different views such as William Connolley and Stephan Schulz might be understandably annoyed if I sent them a friendly notice in an attempt to be nonpartisan. ~ Rameses (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to take note of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, both of which you have violated above. I don't see anywhere where it was found that the editors you mention were guilty of the accusations you make. A neutral wording would be "This may be of interest to you based on your editing of this article", and only given to those that had edited the article. For a wider audience you should rely on noticeboards. It's probably best to not send notices at all, as interested parties will probably be aware anyway. It would probably be best for you to remove the notices you have placed. Verbal chat 13:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you have not looked very hard. Here is the most recent example in a multi-year manipulation of Wikipedia by this cabal. {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=next&oldid=330880216} This manipulation has been so blatant, it has had CBS News coverage, created a new word and gets more than 25,000 hits on Google. The whole world seems to be aware of this with the remarkable exception of Adminstrators on Wikipedia. ~ Rameses (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. This is your final warning from me: please do not make any further accusations of bad faith/cabal membership/tag teaming/edit warring/ etc against any other editor. I've given you a lot of leeway and tried to help, and I will continue to work with you if you change your behaviour. It is not acceptable, per wikipedia policy. Verbal chat 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, the "Vanity Pages for Admins really have no place on Wikipedia and it is high time to clear this detritus" has no place in a neutral notice. Verbal chat 13:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

True - however that is my view and it is also a valid point. Why does the William Connolley page exist when none of his superiors during his short stint in the British Antarctic Survey merit a page? ~ Rameses (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You can place your argument on the AfD page (note that it isn't a vote). WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay sometimes pointed to. If you want to create other articles on his superiors that's fine, but make sure they pass the notability criteria in some way, and meet WP:BLP policy. I believe that the William Connelly article has survived AfD in the past. Verbal chat 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it has survived several AfD's in the past. However, that is largely because he was an Admin and has a large group of friends/supporters who control the Global Warming articles. I personally believe that this vanity page tends to make him look pompous & foolish rather than giving him any benefit in terms of notability. However, I presume he feels far differently about it and that is his right. How is the final deletion decision made if it isn't a vote? ~ Rameses (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You really should keep your accusations to yourself. To answer your question, look at WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:AFD. It goes on weight of policy based arguments. Personally I'd rather some of the references to my RL ID weren't on wikipedia, and don't see why anyone would want an article on here. Verbal chat 14:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well they're not just my accusations, they have been widely published in the Article "Wikipropaganda on Global Warming." Which has given rise to this new term now getting 26,200 hits on Google. From that perspective, you could say this cabal has brought Wikipedia into disrepute. I notice that you have deleted 99% of my "Wikipropaganda on Global Warming" article while it is awaiting an AfD ruling. I believe this is clearly against the rules. Please do not continue with this unilateral deletion process. ~ Rameses (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have RS for the removed sections, please discuss them on the article talk page. You are making accusations against other editors, please stop. Verbal chat 14:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproganda on Global Warming

I see from the above that you are already aware of the 3 Revert Rule. Please enter into discussion on the article talk page and do not restore unsourced material. Verbal chat 14:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, see our page on why google hits aren't RS. Verbal chat 14:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the 3 revert rule apply when I am simply trying to protect an article from illegal Blanking by a tag team? Isn't that censorship? ~ Rameses (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of tag teaming are also uncivil. Note that I didn't revert to WMCs version, and he has blocked me in the past. "Illegal" doesn't apply, and neither is the removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material against our policy. The exceptions to 3RR are few, and this situation is not one of them, so if you continue to edit war you will likely be blocked by a 3rd party. If you want to protect this article from what seems almost certain deletion at this stage, I suggest you enter into dialogue on the talk page and present multiple, independent, reliable sources which discuss this neologism in detail. Verbal chat 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I won't continue to edit war - you win. At least you had the decency not to try arguing that it wasn't censorship. ~ Rameses (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't censorship. Bring RS, and I'll add it myself. This isn't a battle, it's about building an encyclopaedia. You really need to cool it on the rhetoric and the accusations, I've been extremely civil and tolerant so far, but others might not be. It is up to you to engage on the article talk page. Verbal chat 15:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, please don't ask GoRight to get involved in this situation. He is currently under a restriction which bars him from editing articles related to William Connolley. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, I had no idea. Thanks for letting me know. I certainly don't want to cause him any difficulties. What did he do that led to this ban? ~ Rameses (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mostly he was involved in tendentious edits regarding WMC (the person, as distinct from the editor) in articles. There were serious concerns that his edits were in violation of WP:BLP — and your invitation would pretty much put him smack dab into an identical situation if he took it up. The ban is logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stephan Schulz

AfDM| page=Stephan Schulz|logdate=2009 December 10

I thought you might be interested in this vote. Vanity Pages for Admins really have no place on Wikipedia and it is high time to clear this detritus. ~ Rameses (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Persistent WP:ADVOCACY, edit warring, and abuse of multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rameses (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unfair blocking without any warning - of an editor since 2004

Decline reason:

I suggest you log into your account, and write a more persuasive unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rameses (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

2over0 indef blocked two users, Rameses and Brittainia, without warning. Neither of them had a 3RR warning in the past year before the block. They were accused of being sockpuppets and checkusered in the past without any due procedure by Raul654. They had explained they were a husband and wife and did not edit any of the same articles after being warned not to do so. Rameses has been an editor since July 2004. Do you believe this indef blocking without warning is fair? I believe this administrator should be asked to explain his actions.

Decline reason:

Given that you are only here to battle about global warming and not here to build an encylopedia, I'd say that it's fair.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request Review of this Admin's Actions

I request a formal process to investigate this Admin's actions. 2over0 recently indef blocked two users, Brittainia and myself without warning. Neither of us has had a 3RR warning in the past year. We were accused of being sockpuppets and checkusered in February 2007 without any due process or right by Raul654. We explained we are a husband and wife and have not been editing any of the same articles since then. I have been an editor since July 2004. I want the ArbComm to decide if this indef blocking of two long term editors without warning is fair?

I tried to do this myself, but as you can see below, my efforts were killed off by Slakr with the weak excuse that I was editing while blocked to post this request to the Administrators Noticeboard. So I am caught in a vicious Catch-22. Only someone randomly coming to this page and reading this can help me to get the matter attended to. I have copied below the text of what happened below - This is pure injustice... ~ Rameses (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Shipwrecked Log: Day 1 has gone by without a sail on the horizon... ~ Rameses (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Shipwrecked Log: Day 2 dawned and a sail appeared. A Lifebuoy has been thrown towards me - Thank Neptune! Now, I hope that I have the strength left to reach it through the turbulent waves... ~ Rameses (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Below from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Indef_Blocking_of_User:Rameses_and_User:Brittainia_without_3RR_or_Warning.3F (I am not sure how to link to the actual without losing it when the archiving is done)

[Titling removed] Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without 3RR or Warning? ==

Resolved. Blocked for editing while blocked to post this. Comments below. --slakr\ talk / 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2over0 recently indef blocked two users, Rameses and Brittainia without warning. Neither of them had a 3RR warning in the past year. They were accused of being sockpuppets and checkusered in the past without any due procedure by Raul654. They explained they were a husband and wife and have not been editing any of the same articles recently. Rameses has been an editor since July 2004. Do you believe this indef blocking without warning is fair? - 59.164.204.229 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not blocked from editing your User talk:Rameses and User talk:Brittainia pages, so you are free to request an unblock there. For further details on requesting an unblock see WP:GAB. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds ridiculous to me. Let me guess, they edited global warming articles, got annoyed with having their constantly comments erased/altered and then got 3rred over it? 2over2 also felt the need to collapse some of my better arguments in the IPCC talk page. He seems really invested in those pages and I don't need the hassle of writing counter-arguments if some admin is going to basically erase them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI for those involved. I had requested at SPI that this be independently confirmed, but the accounts admitted being associated with the same IP address so the request was denied. --GoRight (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris weren't you were involved in the discussions that led to this indef blocking? (See: User talk:2over0/Archive 3#Block of Brittainia, User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris#Brittainia/Rameses, and User talk:2over0/Archive 3#Canvassing). GoodLocust, your first guess is correct. Brittainia was trying to return the sentence "Some scientists dispute the consensus view." which had been deleted from the lead of the Global Warming article without discussion. This is what led to this indef blocking.[4]. Brittainia had also started a new section in GW Talk [5]. This was immediately deleted by William M. Connolley.[6] Brittainia undid WMC's revert and then the talk started on the above pages to indef block both Brittainia and Rameses. Within a few hours three "warnings" were posted on Brittainia's page and then without giving her any chance to comply, she and Rameses were both indef blocked. Interestingly enough, within a few hours of her indef blocking her new section was rapidly hidden from view from the GW Talk page by KimDabelsteinPetersen who "archived" this new section [7] and then it was "binned" [8] (a very unusual step) a few hours later, so that it was completely eliminated from the GW talk page within hours of her blocking. All of this occurred within a period of under 12 hours - is this the way old editors (from July 2004) are supposed to be banished from Wikipedia? - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Users who are militant opposers of the concept anthropogenic global warming, as well as those who have an extreme emotional attachment to any concept, be it scientific or political, have always been dealt with in this way, particularly if they have been connected to each other such as sharing the same IP address and not editing at the same time of day. If Rameses (talk · contribs) and Brittainia (talk · contribs) are in fact different individuals who share the same internet protocol address, then there is perhaps a good reason to block the accounts, as they may be the same individual (sockpuppets) or two similarly minded individuals working with each other (meatpuppets). Both are forbidden from use on Wikipedia, except under certain legitimate uses. Certainly in this case, these two accounts were not being used in conjunction with each other for legitimate purposes and they were blocked. If this is not the case, the users in question are free to request an unblock through the proper channels, which is certainly not making a thread to complain about the blocking administrator while logged out and using their incredibly visible IP address. Considering Brittainia only has 45 mainspace edits and Rameses only has 237 over the course of their ~5 year history on the project, I cannot determine whether or not anything of value was lost.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to return the sentence "Some scientists dispute the consensus view." which had been deleted from the lead of the Global Warming article without any discussion is militant? The edits were not even on the same pages. Many families have only one computer at home linked to the internet. Does Wikipedia believe all couples are "meatpuppets" and should be banned? Couples generally have similar views after a few decades of marriage. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If this couple edits Wikipedia in a way that primarily advocates their view, be it majority or minority, on a subject, then they act as meatpuppets of one another and should be blocked. However, as it has been proven in the past, it is highly unlikely that these two people only have one computer and they allow one another to log in, make a statement, log out, and then the other to log in to make another statement. Over all, it sounds highly inefficient both as a method to contribute to the project and as a method to advocate one's or their views.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Since they are not editing the same pages, the only reason to do so is that there is only one computer in the house connected to the internet. This is not that unusual around the world - not everyone is rich enough to have many computers and internet connections. Your allegation that they edit primarily to advocate their view seems to conflict strongly with your earlier point that Brittainia only has 45 mainspace edits over 5 years? Is this your idea of militant advocacy? - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Both have edited Global warming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). And both have edited Climate of Mars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and within an hour of each other on its talk page. Same goes for Talk:Extraterrestrial atmospheres (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs). And both seem to have similar writing styles, much like the title of the thread on this board. Such a case would be discussed as such in the proper channels for requesting an unblock, none of which is logging out and making a thread on the administrators' noticeboard as his, her, or their IP address. And that is merely the count to the mainspace. I have not counted the talk page, Wikipedia page, Wikipedia talk page, or user talk page edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously going back 3 years? This was before they were asked not to edit the same pages. Try checking in the past year. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have looked throughout their editing histories, yes, because Brittainia's is not as extensive and there can only be crossover prior to being asked not to edit the same pages. Now drop the fucking charade already and admit that you are Rameses and/or Brittainia so I can stop telling you to stop asking things on this page and go to your talk page(s) to request an unblock through the proper channels.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no charade and no cause for foul language. I have never said I am not Rameses and I have openly posted my IP address with every post. I am not requesting an unblock but a review of an Admin's actions. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is inherently a request to unblock both the Rameses and Brittainia accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A review of an Admin's actions would be a review to see if the Admin acted properly, in a reasonable and fair manner according to Wikipedia's rules. If the review finds they didn't, then the proper follow up steps should occur. I don't see why you object - do you feel that all Admin's actions should be above review? - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) If they want to be unblocked, it would seem to me that they can use the ((unblock}} templates and various other unblock request venues like everyone else. I should note that if an editor is editing while blocked, it isn't going to help their case—even if they think the block unjust. --slakr\ talk / 11:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not editing any articles - simply requesting a review of an Admin's actions here. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rameses and Brittainia can talk on their own behalf through their own accounts rather than suggest that their blocks were improper through logged out edits. Editing while blocked does not help ever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I request the review of this Admin's actions on my own talkpage? I can't see that being very productive. - 59.164.204.192 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly bring more neutral eyes to it rather than blatantly socking to get your point across.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked 59.164.204.192 for editing while blocked. If he continues, I would suggest a block on 59.164.204.0/24 +AO,+ACB. For the users blocked, I would highly suggest that if you feel you were blocked wrongly, please use the talk page of the primary account that's blocked to make the dispute. For more information as well as alternative venues for disputing blocks, please see the general unblock request instructions either on the block notification screen or in via the blocking policy. --slakr\ talk / 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a buzzkill, but "resolved" doesn't seem appropriate. The forked and inverted ANI against the blocked users is "resolved", but the actual topic of the discussion is not at all, or even discussed. The blocks becoming "more rationalized" from more recent events doesn't make that all disappear. Naturally, the normal unblocking methods are available, but I can't even completely fault stepping over that in this case given the potentially dubious situation behind the first block, and there have been cases of precisely this kind of multi-tiered blocking abused by admins in the past. If I had gone from no warnings to blocked and in the middle of other filings out of nowhere because the issuing admin was a name I might have recognized as involved, I can picture panicking to here to have something said before being completely unable to edit.

Users can't be preemptively blocked pending the unknown outcome of things... blocks without warning on established users are even more rare. That needs to be explained. There are at least some fair points whatever your angle but I can't in any way see how forcing people to come to an IP's talk page for this kind of discussion would bring "more neutral eyes". I don't care who is whom and I'm not going to research it past the histories, but this is all just common sense used (or ignored). imo, best off put back into ANI as a new entry actually on the topic mentioned. Being off in a corner of Wikipedia as is suggested is essentially restricting it to all but eyes directly looking for it in the first place. Far from neutral. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Datheisen, this long post doesn't seem helpful. The IP posted both here and on WP:AN to appeal both blocks. Nobody has suggested discussing things on the IP's talk page. Perhaps the best thing is for this discussion to be archived. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Contacting ArbCom

I saw in your edit summary that you wanted to contact ArbCom. The best way to do so is outlined here - you can send an email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org, or enable email on your account, go to User:Arbitration Committee, and click on the "Email this user" link in the toolbox on the left of the page. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my rescue, MastCell. That didn't take as long as I had feared it would. I am trying to read and learn about the arbitration process but it seems dauntingly complex for an ordinary old editor like me. Is there someone experienced in these matters who I could turn to for help? ~ Rameses (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rameses (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This editor had been editing since 2004 and was suddenly blocked indefinitely without any warning.

Decline reason:

No reason for unblocking given. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.