More random

Yeah, I used to play with it in my bedroom, but really I wanted a PDP11.

I'm sorry about the Tacitus thing. That does seem extreme.

But KDP was also banned, so the committee can't have been entirely stupid.

[Err, I think if Twatcom had just banned me, they might have got away with it. But banning obviously sane people like KDP does makes them look stupid. I'm a bit puzzled why you think otherwise. What is wrong with KDP, from you viewpoint? -W]

William, what did you do to be topic-banned?

[But I linked to the decision! Which has all the justification in it, err, surely? -W]

I almost certainly confused KDP with a Dane who used to bend the rules to ensure that articles about the European Union resembled hagiographies. I've just had a look and couldn't find KDP editing any EU articles. He seems to have stuck to global warming. So - I'm sorry about him too.

[Ah, thanks -W]

I must say, I was surprised by the verbosity and formality of the proceedings. I suppose it has to be like that but it doesn't half resemble a politburo. A lot of jowly old men sitting around a very long table voting on the best way to massage the latest tractor production statistics.

[Yes, the immense length of the proceedings is a problem. There is no discipline or order, and then arbcomm complains about the lack of order, which is (naturally) everyone's fault except theirs -W]

Some person mention tractor production statistic. Please being kind enough to explain important issue.

Well, I followed the link. The destination was huge, so I plumped for looking at 3.2.8. Buggered if I could figure out what was going on, or even what was good and what was bad.

[Ah, indeed. If there is sufficient interest (or probably even if there isn't :-) I'll probably provide an annotated guide to the case at some point -W]

So this is basically the Berkeley Sidewalk Lesson?
That's: "Never argue with crazy people, because passers-by can't tell which of you is crazy."

Back on the subject: As an aspiring-to-be-former Wikipedia editor I've got a few dozen spleens to vent regarding this Arbitration madness, and how the powers-that-be run the place. But it's going to take a while to compose my thoughts.

[Your aspirations are dashed: no-one has banned you, as far as I can tell. That means you get to do all the work from now on, tee-hee -W]

In the meantime here is a link to an earlier version of the arbitration decision. While supposedly an unofficial version that was posted by a vandal, it's far more coherent and honest than the official decision.

I liked this observation from the 'earlier version':

"it's a lot easier to make up things to find fault in than it is to come up with actual rational answers (this is called the 'burden of proof')."

[Hmm, seems to me that you need to create a wikipedia account. We can point you in the right direction, if it isn't obvious -W]

I suspect it would have been far better to retain the experience on both sides, with some level of compromise agreed.

As it is, new, green troops will occupy the trenches on both sides, waiting to go over the top, with no veterans to advise caution. Then the wars will simply resume with a different cast.

And the Climategate "external forcing" as you adroitly phrased it, will not be the only such forcing.

I suspect that the WP:RS policy is the root cause. Accurate-but-not-RS sources boggle the mind of the newbies.

You are doing your usual Goebbels work on wikipedia on this one.
You are simply a Green Shirt Fascist.

[That was vaguely entertaining, so can stay. But please folks - don't respond -W]

So you are claiming that you have not censored the wikipedia entry for Hal Lewis in the last 24 hours?

[I haven't touched the Hal Lewis entry. For the "Hal Lewis (Aku)" entry I added information. For the "Harold Lewis" entry I've removed some stuff that wasn't reliably sourced [1] and discussed various posisble imporvements on the talk page [2]. Why don't you discuss the "censorship" there? All are welcome, if polite -W]

I admire your perseverance with Wikipedia. The process seems designed to deliberately avoid any expertise in the writing. Thus it seems that almost anything that can be found online (and cannot these days?) is game for inclusion in an article. Common sense is not allowed. I gave up editing after a very minor dispute over some nonsense ... I could show with math that the other guy was simply wrong, but that is original research, and so not allowed. Arrrgghhh.

Re wikipedia: QED..

Lawrence Solomon is writing about you again. According to one of his links, he is ticked off that you would not let Wiki call him an environmentalist.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/14/lawrence-solomon-global-…

The dimwitted commenters there will no doubt take this as proof that the global warming "hoax" has been defeated once again, and the hockey stick's broken, the decline isn't hidden anymore, etc., etc.

I've decided to buy myself a nice pair of slippers. Wouldn't want to hurt my feet crunching through the debris of all this "broken" stuff lying about the place. The way they're going it'll soon be knee deep, what with all those final nails and splintered coffins being dropped all around.

Who, me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hank
Just busy doing other things

aiee ....

"... as the invitation to the confab puts it, 'review[ing] strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it.'

Yes, these nutjobs actually use language like this, even when they think no one will see it.

And what are these policies that must be crushed? Addressing climate change ...."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026219.php

followed by
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... There's nothing quite as bewildering as listening to the right try to explain their hostility towards modern science. ....

http://hnn.us/blogs/72.html

"This blog is run by Rick Shenkman, the author of the new book, Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter (Basic Books, June 2008). Mr. Shenkman, an Emmy award-winning investigative reporter, is an associate professor of history at George Mason University and editor of the university's History News Network ...."

http://www.climatecentral.org//breaking/blog/why_i_wrote_about_judith_c…

"... Climate Central creates nonpartisan, nonadvocacy multimedia content for our own website and for outside media ....
weâve published a story that calls for a bit more explanation. Itâs a profile of Judith Curry .....
...
... in the contentious area of climate science, one key question is: 'when scientists disagree, how do I know whom to believe?'... "

[Well it could have been interesting, but fundamentally it falls for the usual meeja false-balance error, and the lack of understanding. Curry has been crit, not for talking to outsiders, but for talking bollocks. The article should have picked up some of her errors - the various insults she has dumped on good people very publically, then slyly semi-retracted -W]

So, I thought I'd see if I could get Nature's upcoming climate publication, there's an online quiz they're using to decide who gets a freebie.
https://www.sunbeltfs.com/forms/nq/subscribe.asp
I recommend trying out for it.

This item in particular was fun -- it asks what climate-related blogs you read. It lists under Science three blogs:

_Bright Green Blog
_Real Climate
_Stoat
_Other (please specify)

("Bright Green Blog" -- the Christian Science Monitor's effort -- ended on "February 16, 2010 [a]fter 22 months and some 500 posts")