User talk:JRR Trollkien

To whom it may concern,

We have reason to believe that this account is operated in whole or part by the same person who edited from the following IP ranges and accounts:

This person has previously been banned from Wikipedia - their editing priviledges were revoked. Thus, their edits to this site are unauthorised and forbidden. Accordingly, this account is blocked from editing Wikipedia. All edits by this account may be reverted by any user. Please avoid reinstating edits by this account.

We have requested that the operator of this account confirm or deny this belief, and received no productive response. However, in the unlikely event that this is in fact a case of mistaken identity, the real operator is welcome and encouraged to appeal this account block, following the process detailed at wikipedia:banning policy - emailing user:Jimbo Wales, or a member of the wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.

To keep discussion and evidence in one place, please concentrate discussion of this block, and provision of evidence, on this talk page. By all means discuss blocks of other accounts, elsewhere. You can see prior versions of this page on the page history.

Thank you. Martin 23:01, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Evidence

culled from various places

User:JRR Trollkien is re-adding article content from these three previously banned users that has since been removed. Sample edits include:

Also of interest is this edit where User:JRR Trollkien cites Craig Hubley

Respectfully, UninvitedCompany 23:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have found more evidence that EntmootsOfTrolls and JRR Trollkien are the same person.

User:EntmootsOfTrolls contains (or contained, if someone attempts to destroy evidence) the following text:

The neutrality of this page is disputed. As it should be.

User:JRR Trollkien contains (or contained, if someone attempts to destroy evidence) the following text, which seems to be very similar, almost mockingly so:

The identity of this user is disputed. As it should be.

—Guanaco 00:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's some more garbage from User:JRR Trollkien. Political economy -- pasted in a random block of text [1] from the current Consumerium version (identical to an old WP version). Monetary reform -- put inappropriate category tags [2] [3] on the article. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quite a bit of evidence of disruptive behavior was collected at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien/Evidence for the previous arbitration. Isomorphic 16:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

JRR seems to have a serious problem with keeping his contributions in the NPOV. As Wile E. Heresiarch said, he pastes in random blocks of text. The text he added to hearsay looked like an editorial. [4]

Also, he has been "arming for war" and spreading a RED FACTION RED ALERT! around. [5] I would like the IP addresses of User:RïckK User:Editing Saddam Hussein, etc. to be compared to that of each member of the "Red Faction." There is already strong evidence showing that one or more of the members were involved in the recent WP:RFA sockpuppet votes by User:Editing Saddam Hussein.Guanaco 08:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fred Bauder: There is strong evidence based on his earliest posts that this user was not a new user when he entered Wikipedia, See [6] 12:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

(to Martin) The edits follow a familiar pattern: use of a unique vocabulary (ontology, epistemological, ...) and politicized world view in articles where simpler language and a more factual approach would be more appropriate.

He is now adding 24's old text on a wholesale basis to a wide variety of articles. See how text from 24's version of Where Mathmatics Comes From has been re-added without explaination.

Also adding a Quote from Craig Hubley

-- UninvitedCompany 23:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

For another instance of reinstating EntmootsOfTrolls text, see this diff of an article that was redirected to ethics in between. I reverted and noted my actions on his talk page. --Michael Snow 22:41, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Some more points:

  • Usernames - the LotR puns precisely mirror EofT's puns in a way that is designed to be completely transparent - it is screaming out to be recognised as the same person, even as the guy behind them bitches about the redundancy of identity.
  • Self-identification as one of the "Legions of Trolls". "Legion of Trolls" is one of EofT's synonyms, and he has signed comments (for example, on user talk:MyRedDice as such in the past.
  • Continued interest by 142.177.etc in Wikipedia can be verified from recyclopedia amd consumerium, for example. If this was an impersonation, he could easily speak up about it, just as "Trolls of Navarone" account complained about Telgur.

It is possible that this is someone deliberately impersonating 142.177.etc for unknown (unknowable) reasons. However, we already make clear (cf wikipedia:blocking policy) that doing this is inappropriate and might lead to one being blocked, so this need not stop us. Martin 01:34, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Evidence against

Please add any evidence that JRR Trollkien is not operated by the banned user in question here. Thank you.

This is a weasel question - what possible evidence COULD be presented that this user is not the same? Mark Richards 00:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Examples:

  • "I met JRR Trollkien down the pub last night - his real name is Matthew Rogers, and he's a brain surgeon - he says that the similarity between himself and 142.177.etc is just co-incidence".
  • "I was around to discuss with the banned guy as 142.177.etc, and EofT, and the JRR T guy seems completely different. I know there are some superficial similarities, but my money is on them being different people."
  • "The JRR Trollkien account is run by a roommate of mine - he's not EofT: I only introduced him to Wikipedia a few months back. It's all a big misunderstanding".
  • "I've analysed 142.177.etc's posting style, and there are some big differences, and not easy ones to fake either. For example, JRR T's average word length is around twice that of EofT's, and contains many more Americanisms."
  • "Much has been made of JRR T's knowledge of 142's posting history - but I think he was just following the links from _this_webpage_, that I presume was put up by 142 at some point."
  • "The guy emailed me from his university email account, and I've checked with the admissions folks, and he is enrolled - apparently in a course in anarchist politics. So he's definately not this Craig Hubley fellow that people think is behind 142, at any rate."

If there's anything that makes you suspect that this is a case of mistaken identity, whether it be new evidence, of stuff that makes you think the evidence for is unconvincing, post it here. Martin 01:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

(reworking a comment from elsewhere for here)

It seems to me (and has seemed for some time) abundantly clear that the JRR Trollkien account (and certain other accounts) are controlled in whole or part by our life-banned friend.

I'm opposed in principle to life bans, precisely because of the problems we're having here - some users are aware of the history and tiresome nature of the conflict, others are not, and this makes such bans problematic. However, I'm also opposed to banned users seeking to subvert their bans, rather than taking a more reasoned approach. The use of multiple sock puppet accounts, seems to me to be using genuine newcomers as "human shields". So this all leaves me in something of a quandary.

My current feeling is that this ban should be changed to one that will expire in twelve months - with the standard proviso that subverting the ban resets the timer. While I'm sure this wouldn't satisfy those who were not around to witness the original ban, it would at least be something that could be more widely accepted. Regardless of which, our banned friend should respect his ban, and accept that he is unauthorised to edit Wikipedia for its duration. His current approach appears to be to cause enough strife to trigger a hostile fork, which I don't believe is in the best interests of the "GFDL corpus". Martin 01:26, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

from edit summaries:

AC has not ruled on this issue - please do not undermine them
So what is the role of the AC in view if their ruling is irrelevant to your behavior?)

I'm somewhat confused by this. You're aware that I'm a member of the arbitration committee, right? Undermining a group I'm part of is considerably more Machiavellian than my limited cabalite powers can achieve.

The role of the arbcom is largely to replace Jimbo as an official source of bans and desysopings and similar in those last resort cases where such measures are used. The arbcom does not create Wikipedia policy, though it does interpret it, and arbitration is one of the means by which policy is applied. The arbcom generally does not determine how bans are to be enforced, as that is a matter of policy. The arbcom can rule as to whether a specific enforcement of a ban was permitted within current policy, but such rulings are not required prior to every enforcement action, provided those enforcing the ban are not acting against Wikipedia policy. Even where people are acting against Wikipedia policy, arbitration is the last resort in the dispute resolution process.

Incidentally, this is not a new thing. Prior to the arbcom being created, the community routinely considered and decided questions of how to enforce bans against various users, and while we tended to listen to Jimbo's advice if he gave it, we weren't paralysed and unable to act without an official stamp of approval. If you wish to require that blocks of suspected reincarnations must first approved by the arbcom, that is a suggestion for a policy change, and wikipedia talk:banning policy is the appropriate venue. If you believe that policy has not been followed with regards to this account, please do tell us about it, and we can discuss any problems and do it differently next time.

My difficulty is that you appear to be suggesting that these various blocks (none of them mine, I note) and edits are somehow against policy, but haven't really explained why, or were you have explained, those explanations don't seem to square with the policies in question. Help? Martin 00:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are several issues here.
  1. The 'evidence' is a matter of opinion. It seems like speculation to me - there is no compelling evidence to prove that this user is the same as the banned user. Nevertheless, you are right that if you hold an extremely low threshold for proof, you could assume that it is the same user. Its a question of interpretation.
  2. The policy on 'unbanning' allows for judgement and gives clear room for judgement.
  3. Why is the AC discussing this user if there is already authority to ban them?
  4. I'm not accusing anyone of Machevelianism - I'm sure that we're all acting in good faith - I am concerned at what I see as an increasingly 'ban first, ask questions later' attitude to dealing with conflict. I am opposed to this on two levels - it undermines wikis, by defining the 'community' in an arbitrary way that is open to abuse, and secondly, I do not believe it is effective. These bans cannot realistically be enforced, and are provoking conflict, laying down a gauntlet to trolls to engage in every more subtle reincarnations. This is troll-feeding at its most unproductive.

Help! Mark Richards 00:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I can reply on a point-by-point basis.

  1. The evidence is of a similar level, better even, than where we have banned previous sock puppets. To the extent that Wikipedia policy is formed by precedent, this is significant. The judgements of those who've previously gotten involved with this person are also significant, and something we've taken into account in the past.
  2. You mean the policy on unblocking, not the policy on unbanning. Yes, it allows clear scope for sysops to excercise their judgement. The corollary to that is that you have to back up your judgement if people question it, which is why we're having this conversation.
  3. You mean block them. Well, there are two cases relating to this.
    • The first regards whether there is authority under current policy for sysops to block "obvious trolls", including users with "troll" in the username. This is being discussed because Angela requested arbitration on the matter, and there were four votes to accept. Note that the case was accepted for arbitration prior to there being authority to block the JRR T account as a reincarnation: at the time, nobody had presented any evidence to that effect, or moved to block as an "obvious reincarnation".
    • The second case is a request for arbitration. The arbitrators are discussing it because UninvitedCompany made a request, and as such we're required to discuss it and decide whether or not to accept that case.
  4. This is hardly "block first, ask questions later". This account (just this one) has been here for three months, and made over a thousand edits. Nor is this a "ban first, ask questions later" trend - this person is banned because of a ruling from Jimbo, which took place some time ago.
  5. I agree that these blocks are provoking conflict (well, with you, anyway :). However, a lack of blocks would also provoke conflict, and lays down a gauntlet to this particular person to engage in ever more blatant reincarnations. We can't prevent conflict - we can only attempt to limit the damage. I also agree that this person's ban may well be counter-productive: however, the solution to counter-productive bans is not to obstruct good faith attempts to enforce them, but to get them officially lifted.

You don't have to reply to everything at once - if you like, pick the thing that troubles you most, and focus on that first. That's much the reason I'm focusing on this account first - if I cannot convince you on this account, what would be the purpose of discussing the others? Martin 01:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From what you have said it comes down to a matter of opinion about what is an acceptable level of evidence. The fact that people in the past have been blocked for less doesn't really give me much comfort. We don't yet know whether admins have the authority to block 'obvious trolls', nor what an 'obvious troll' is for the purposes of banning. There doesn't seem to be any concensus, apart from the fact that we find them annoying. I am appalled by the idea that I am to be empowered to block anyone who annoys me. What is at stake here for me is whether we are to remain a more or less open community. While I agree that this case is extreme, and that it is likely that you are right, and this is a previously banned user, it is a slippery slope. The other accounts blocked along with it seem to me to be unrelated users who simply have views that we disagree with. That is what matters to me here. Mark Richards 02:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that we do know that admins don't have the authority to block obvious trolls - the arbcom is just having a hard time admitting that, for political reasons. Allowing for enforcement of blocks on obvious sock puppets will reduce the pressure from those who wish to make annoyance an offence worthy of an instant block. You have to decide whether the hypothetical and so far non-existent damage to victims of mistaken identity outweighs the very real damage that would result in authorising sysops to block those that annoy them.

Anyway, since you accept that I am likely right, perhaps you will let this particular block stand for now? Even if you are right, and there is a remote possibility that this is a bizzare case of mistaken identity, we have an appeals process, and any victim of mistaken identity will easily be able to provide enough evidence (in confidence if necessary) to convince either Jimbo or the arbitration committee of this and get the block overturned and the matter cleared up... and strengthen your position too.

The benefit to this is that that will allow us to discuss the other accounts in the matter, now that we've done the groundwork on this particular case. If you're still worried about the slippery slope implications after we look at those other cases, we can certainly come back to this one and reconsider it in light of what we've learnt elsewhere. Martin 02:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree - discussing this particular case is unproductive, we should move on from this, and, while I do not feel that this account should be blocked, I will not unblock it. I started the stub of a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. Let's move there. Thanks for your calmness and sanity, Mark Richards 02:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that tommorrow then. My offer still stands to discuss the other blocked accounts individually, and try to present the evidence that led Heph to conclude that they were obvious sock puppets. Of course, you might still disagree on the levels of evidence provided and required, but I think it would set your mind at least a little at ease.
Thanks for discussing this - glad we've made some progress. Martin 02:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Complaint by UninvitedCompany

This user appears to be the same user who was previously banned as:

and who was believed to be, in real life, Craig Hubley (website).

In accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, I have tried to discuss these matters on the user's talk page, as has another user. My concerns have gone unanswered despite User:JRR Trollkien making continued edits elsewhere. I have also asked User:JRR Trollkien to confirm or deny having edited previously under one of the three identities listed above, on a related arbitration page, and he neither confirmed nor denied having made such edits. I do not believe that mediation is appropriate in this case, both because of User:JRR Trollkien's refusal to discuss any edits on any talk page, and because of the existing ban. However, if the committee should conclude that mediation would somehow be beneficial, I would be happy to participate.


Requested relief

If the committee can satisfy itself that this is the same user banned previously, I request that the existing ban be reaffirmed and enforced. I believe this is important, notwithstanding the quality of any current edits, to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of user bans and the right of the community to choose its members.

If the committee believes that this user is unrelated to any previously banned user, I request that the committee ask User:JRR Trollkien to quit adding content written by previously banned users and since removed through the consensus editing process.

Respectfully, UninvitedCompany 23:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


there is something I find a bit problematic here UC. It is simply that some of these edits you mention here, have been done while the previous user was not banned *yet* (for example 24). Besides, the user mentionned has not been banned because of the content provided, but because of an behavior considered inapropriate by the community standards. You are basing a good deal of your argument on the fact trollkien is reintroducing content provided before the ban and not object of the ban.
While I understand very well your concern, I am also worried that what you are asking will set a couple of precedents that could be unwelcome. Right now, it is not current practice to remove edits made by banned users previously to the banning. And I would add that we punish users being bad with the community by punishing them, not deleting contents. What you are now suggesting is that we change this entirely, and use from now on a new law. From a legal perspective, when a law is changed, it is not fair that it is applied by anteriority on people.
So, I'd say, the committee should only feel concerned by one question : if this user is a banned user, the ban should be enforced. If not, this user should not be bothered. In all cases, what this user is doing is irrelevant and the type of edit he is making is only to be used to make the relationship betwen previously banned user. Content made while the editor could edit should not be taken into account directly.
Between you and I, I think you should try to loosen this unhealthy obsession :-) But well... friendly yours. Ant
The original ban of 24 was due to a refusal to work cooperatively with other editors, because 24 engaged in exactly the sort of constant re-insertion of his material that is going on here. 142, as I recall, was chiefly banned as a "reincarnation," and the stated reason for EofT's ban concerned the contents of a specific edit.
Nope. 142 was not banned for being a reincarnation. He was banned for making threats. I think that whatever the reason of the ban, and whatever its validity, it is important to say that the reasons of the 3 bannings were not content itself, but behavior. It would be nice that over time, the reason why people are banned are not distorted. I think it is important. If only to remind and insist that people are banned because of behavioral issues, and not for content issues. If reinsertion of content added by a user who has been banned *after* the edition is motive to ban people, then we admit that we ban people for issues of "content". While if we ban people for being reincarnation of ban user, we inforce banning, but we ban over behavioral issue, not content issue. I am in agreement to enforce ban, I am not in agreement to ban people on issues of content. And I do think that the argument you are giving above is borderline in that context. I'd say it is okay to try to make a link between people using the argument of reinsertion, but it is not okay to ban them because they are reinserting content that did not justify the ban in the first place. I am not sure I am explaining myself clearly enough here Steve, but I hope you will see the slight difference in approach that I suggest. Enforce banning over sockpuppet if you wish. But please, do not put a ban on someone because of an issue of content properly. I think that would be a very serious slippery slope to do so. Do you understand what I mean ?
Several users have counseled me to provde evidence that the user is indeed the same as the ones previously banned. Since there is no technical means to provide such evidence (since we don't try to verify identity and since we haven't saved logs from a year ago to use to compare HTTP headers), I can only point to the editing pattern, which is what I've done. I have already pointed out User:JRR Trollkien's refusal to deny authorship of the 24/142/EofT material, which, IMO, speaks volumes.
The edits being reinstated by User:JRR Trollkien are ones that were removed one at a time, through the course of careful editing by a wide varity of users. None of them were removed by me, and only one was removed due to authorship alone, and that after the ban. By re-adding this content, verbatim, paragraphs at a time, to a fairly wide range of articles, User:JRR Trollkien is undoing the careful work of many people who reworded it or rewrote the articles to make them better in the intervening time, well over a year in some cases. I think that's unfair, regardless of the true identity of the people involved.
Well, that is a wiki, and everyone is free to participate I'd say. Since you consider that readding content removed over a year by 2 or 3 people is unfair, I take it you consider that the opinion of 2 or 3 people only is more important that the opinion of just 1 person. That means that you agree to follow the opinion of the majority then, and that you lend all power to only 2 or 3 people. I think that is also a dangerous direction. It is perhaps interesting to see in the view of current political dispute involving 172. Imagine that WP is providing a very antiisraelite view. And that one user comes around and add his pro-israel view. Then leave for a while. During a year, 2 or 3 people against israel view come along and carefully, quietly remove the pro-israel view. Then the initial user comes back and tries to reinsert his pro-israel view. Would you say that this is vandalism and unfair ? I'd say that it is not; and if you reacted by excluding this guy, you would perhaps be on the slope of censorship and majority of pov promoting. I think I can say that fairly. I have seen work done on antifrench articles. I tried to improve them a year ago. Over a year, a good deal of what I added was removed quietly by anti french people. Would it be unfair that I add it again ? Just because more people removed it ? Arenot we not bordering something bad here ? I agree that some of the work done is perhaps best than what was done previously, but I also wonder if there is not a risk of "paralysing" the life of articles when a set of users decide that "this version" is the good one, and should not receive again input in another anterior direction. This is something I fear a bit for Wikipedia : the organisation of team who will protect some articles and prevent growth. Overprotection. Hmmmmm.... just think about it please, when you are over your hunting energy. Please, do think about it... from a woman working as well on a younger wikipedia, and who can see the protective forces at work. Do not forget that they are cases which could be dangerous to set. That is all I mean, and I wish you see beneath that precise case to think about that. Okay ? :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As to whether this is an unhealthy obsession, I disagree and would be happy to discuss the reasons why at some more suitable location if you're interested.
UninvitedCompany 17:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think I already know your arguments. But perhaps it is too important to you. I think you consider you have been trapped at some point, and want to compensate now. Well.... no big deal. I still object, but I have other things to do in my life. I think I enough said my opinion. If you understand what I try to say, so much the best, otherwise, it is not worth I go on :-)

User:JRR Trollkien should be permanently banned asap. If WP does not have a mechanism for making such a ban effective, we should really sit down and figure one out. User:JRR Trollkien is a time wasting moron -- get rid of him immediately. BTW I think it's beside the point whether User:JRR Trollkien is the same as some other troll. Same or not, just ban him. Thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I ask the arbitration committee not to ban JRR Trollkien, but to recognize that he and EntmootsOfTrolls are the same person. There is no need for a new ban to be implemented, if it is shown that JRR Trollkien is already banned. Guanaco 08:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos blocked JRR Trollkien and Leo Trollstoy for thirty days. Later on 10 Jun 2004, Mark Richards unblocked, asking (here) "Has the committee already ruled? On both users? If I've missed something here please let me know".

Votes and discussion by arbitrators (0/3/1/0)

  1. Accept Fred Bauder. There is strong evidence based on his earliest posts that this user was not a new user when he entered Wikipedia, See [7] 12:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC) Reject, he's out of here. Fred Bauder 18:10, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Recuse - Comments by 142.177 to me were the main reason why that user was banned. [8] [9] --mav 09:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept; if he is, indeed, shown to be a reincarnation, this will be a short case. James F. (talk) 09:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) This looks like it will be unnecessary, as JRR is currently deemed by popular acclaim to be a reincarnation, as said; however, accept for purposes of reviewing sysop behaviour in relation to this account &c. James F. (talk) 01:02, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC).
  4. Accept. My current belief is that under current banning policy, JRR may already be blocked for being an obvious reincarnation, without even needing an arbitration ruling. As of now, reject. Now that JRR has been blocked as an obvious reincarnation, we only need to consider this case if Mark, Heph, and the community in general are unable to resolve any difference of opinion regards whether the reincarnation is sufficiently "obvious" (in which case, accept). Martin 02:57, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rand held that relativism is evil

It is absurd to accuse Rand of advocating pursuing one's interests at the expense of others. She was the foremost philosophical advocate of human rights, and that is universally known to those who have cared to acquaint themselves with her philosophical positions. She held that in normal social contexts people's interests do not conflict with each other; that the appearance that they do resulted from their having an unenlightened view of where their interests lie. Moreover, she held relativism to be profoundly evil, and said so many times in her writings. Therefore, to proffer her as an example of an advocate of relativism is absurd. Michael Hardy 00:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Sustainability category/project/series

Hi. I noticed you have worked on the Sustainability page. There has been, as you might expect, a little heat recently at the Hubbert Peak page, and some of us are discussing ways we might better organize the information about energy sources and developments. Articles/subjects that we are discussing the organization/hierarchy of include Hubbert Peak, Energy development, Sustainability, Future energy development, Alternatives to oil. It occurred to me that you might have some fresh ideas about how to go about organizing a rational hierarchy, whether it be a project, a system of categories, a series, or simply an informal vision. Please give your input at the bottom of Talk:Hubbert Peak. Tom - Talk 17:25, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Core issues in ethics

Category:Core issues in ethics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Civics has been nominated for discussion

Category:Civics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]