Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

Lar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I see from his userpage that Larry (Lar) is a car-lovin' (8 of 'em!), plane-lovin' fossil-fuel-burnin' ICE (internal combustion engine) enthusiast with a degree in computing. I also note that he takes sides in these debates, as far as I can see, and it's always with the sceptics. Now wikipedia has a huge following, and I can't help wondering why we are subject to the tastes and biases of an admin like this in the policing of articles concerning this complex, topical and critically important area of science. Is wikipedia somehow deficient in volunteers with climate science qualifications? Having someone like Larry taking an active role in policing and enforcement of a scientific area he is no more qualified to understand than most people in the population seems like a dereliction of duty by other admins who must be much more knowledgeable in the area. This is not meant to poke you with a stick, Larry, but I am truly concerned that you unwittingly represent the uneducated rump of society in your decisions and comments on these pages, and I don't think it's good for the 'pedia. ► RATEL ◄ 05:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that most editors on Wikipedia write anonymously, requiring "climate science qualifications" for editing or admining isn't workable. You have not given yours, for example. Would you disqualify yourself? As to the rest of your comment, try to avoid Ad hominems/personal attacks. I'll note only that Lar's most recent edit to the mainspace, made prior to your comment, sides with a 'pro-AGW editor' (though again, the anonymity issue should be clear).--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not an ad hom, it's a serious questioning of the quality of sysop oversight of a contentious issue. ► RATEL ◄ 05:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Ratel hasn't fully thought through his suggestion of banning anyone who has used fossil fuels from editing climate change articles. As the saying goes -- be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 05:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

FG, thanks for the facile and tangential strawman comment. I'll ignore it. ► RATEL ◄ 05:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"I'll ignore it." -- Too late; you already replied! Fell Gleaming^(talk) 05:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think Ratel's observation is worth discussing here and this is the reason...Ratel, the dispute resolution process for an admin usually works like this: 1) express your concern with the admin on his talk page, 2) if not resolved, do an RfC with another editor, 3) if that doesn't resolve the concern, ask for an admin review from ArbCom. Because the AGW articles are already under probation, if you believe an administrator is acting inappropriately, you can go straight to ArbCom, as I did a few weeks ago. Otherwise, note that posting your feelings about it here don't fall under these procedures. On a personal note, I think Lar's participation on the enforcement board has been fair and neutral. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but you've misinterpreted me. I don't think Larry is behaving inappropriately. I think he is just being who he is. And my contention is we need more. It's not enough. We need area experts policing the many articles linked to the topic. Is that really too much to ask? ► RATEL ◄ 06:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

First you accuse him of taking sides, then you say he's not behaving inappropriately? And if this is all just a call for "more area experts", why do you open a RfE section with his name on it? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 06:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly Ratel, this is significantly over the line. What the heck does it matter who Lar is? And what he does? This section should really just be removed as inappropriate, and Ratel be given a hard wallop with a wet trout. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not over the line, and nor should it be removed (where do you get those ideas? Any guidelines/rules to support you?) It matters a lot who the policemen (and women) are who control the editing bahaviour and to a certain extent content of this topic. If you cannot see that, move along. To FG, I said that it appears to me that he takes sides. That's my impression. The fact that you and other sceptical editors (not Kim) are leaping to his defence says it all. ► RATEL ◄ 06:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Admins are not expected to be credentialed where they act, or to show ideological purity in the form of expressing only negative views toward internal combustion engines or whatever it is you have in mind. The intense politicization of your approach is a significant part of the problem in this area, not part of any solution. Mackan79 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It should go without saying that one shouldn't be able to tell another's POV by their edits. Editors with completely opposing POVs should come up with an article with essentially the same bias. Of course, no one really pays much attention to what I say so just ignore this post and continue on:

"It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I read it, and it was well-said. Ratel, while in an ideal world we would have climatologists and other well-informed scientists editing and administrating these pages, in the practical world, that is impossible. Wikipedian administration is set up so that any uninvolved sysop can act in any topic area they so choose. If you disagree with that, it is a matter for WT:ADMIN or a WP:RFC. NW (Talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems that this section is significantly lacking in Umidus Salmo Trutta's - i'm going to expand:

It doesn't matter who Lar is, it also doesn't matter one bit what Lar is doing outside of Wikipedia - what does matter, is how Lar is conducting himself on Wikipedia. By starting out with a (quite frankly) laughable rant at people who are fond of trains - you basically invalidated whatever argument that you may have had. The next error you make is by arguing that people who aren't experts should be dismissed - sorry but that is completely out of sync with what Wikipedia stands for. A person can be a grave-digger or shit-shoveller and it wouldn't matter - as long as that person is capable of adhering to Wikipedias standards.

If you have an argument then i suggest that you reboot completely and start from scratch - you botched this one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think everyone who reads this knows exactly what I mean, and most are in silent agreement, but won't speak up. Let the record show that I said it. One day, someone studying the way this topic was handled historically on wikipedia will note that we are not all rule-bound eunuchs afraid to speak truth to power. It's clear as the nose on my face that Lar is antagonistic to one side of the argument and should not really be involved in this area. Anyone who declares proudly on his userpage that he "likes trains, planes and cars" and whose family used to own 8 cars at one time should not ever be allowed to police this topic. Over and out. ► RATEL ◄ 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that even if there's evidence that "Lar is antagonistic to one side of the argument and should not really be involved in this area," by focusing on irrelevancies and expressing yourself in shrill terms you are alienating people instead of convincing them. The person whose behavior is of concern can point to your comments and say "Look what I'm up against!" So don't do that. Expressing yourself appropriately gives you more than a warm, fuzzy feeling; it helps convince others that your views have merit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As I'm also "a car-lovin', plane-lovin' fossil-fuel-burnin' ICE (internal combustion engine) enthusiast" (alas, more in my younger days than now) should I also cease editing climate-related articles? oh, how I miss the days when cars had carburetors instead of computers... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it's coloring your edits. ► RATEL ◄ 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry I missed this. Forgive me this one reply after the discussion was capped. Let me just say that Ratel is very confused if he/she thinks my "antagonism" is directed at the content. My concern in the area is with how things are done, not with the content. I can agree with WMC (and others) about the science, while despairing at the methods used by them in the article editing process... because I am strongly NOT in the camp of the deniers in real life. That Ratel hasn't actually figured that out is testimony to his lack of qualification to pass judgment on others. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, this is part of the problem: if you're not lock-step in alignment with some of these editors, you will be labelled as one of "them" (car-lovin, "septic", Scibaby) even if you're actually quite sympathetic to their views. Note I said some editors -- it's not all of them, as evidenced by the sharp criticism Ratel received from some of his ideological allies above, but a few editors with this attitude is sufficient to spoil the editing environment for everyone. Admins need to step up and sanction this battleground behavior universally, and they must be willing to lose such editors entirely if they don't reform. But this doesn't happen -- admins are reluctant to sanction editors who are deemed too valuable -- and here we are, racking up thousands of edits on enforcement pages without an end in sight. ATren (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You can really say "ideological allies" and "battleground behaviour" together without any sense or irony? Well done! William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone jumping to support Ratel's statements. Using this thread as a call to arms, as in admins should get tougher is poor and more than a little battleground in its tone. Polargeo (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-read please, I think you misinterpreted what I said. ATren (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I think I interpreted you correctly. You meant "my side is great; I think I'll snipe at what I'll call "your side"; but you're not allowed to talk about "sides" even though I can" William M. Connolley (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) I was responding to Polargeo. (2) To deny there are sides is to deny reality: of course there are editors with different viewpoints of this contentious issue. The problem is not "sides" per se, but those who take on battleground behavior from their "side". It's quite possible to engage in debate (even heated debate) with out resorting to battleground tactics like the ad-hominem attack against Lar above. My issue is (and has always been) the reluctance to deal with all battleground editors regardless of POV or status. ATren (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In your comments you generalized Ratel's behavior to a group. Could you please help us by pointing to the others who agree with Ratel, because I'm not seeing them. Also I would like to make it very, very clear that I am not an "ideological ally" of Ratel. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Would you then argue that you can demonstrate using diffs a "reluctance to deal with battleground editors," who are on the side opposing WMC? Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not specifically in this case, because I haven't seen that. ATren (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are saying that there are no "battleground editors," who oppose WMC that you have seen? Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This is going nowhere. Shall we leave it? Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not going to further clutter this page. If someone has a particular issue with my comments, bring it to my talk. (Hipocrite, Boris, I'll answer your questions there if you like) ATren (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.firstpersonobserver.com/?p=6 William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar's statement that he's concerned about the methods being used to maintain the articles doesn't seem to match well with the fact that most of the concern of uninvolved admins, including himself, in this probation has focussed on the problematic behavior of those who, by-and-large, try to insert their point of view into the articles.

Perhaps they just haven't got around to dealing with those unacceptable methods Lar is concerned about. But in any case, to complain about alleged (and presumably largely unchecked) misbehavior while the evidence of actual, sanctioned misbehavior is gathering, seems a little odd.

And it's not as if this was a surprise to anyone. The mainstream editors tended to support the sanctions during the initial discussion and the counter-culture editors tended to oppose them. We knew what we'd get and we weren't surprised when we got it. If the editing atmosphere has changed for the better (and I find every reason to believe that it has) it is largely because a lot of the trouble-makers have been told to stop it or made to do so, not least by Lar himself. The sanctions are working because they enable and empower pretty much the same group of editors about whom Lar expresses reservations above. There are exceptions, to be sure, but they do not amount to the level of sanctions rightly heaped upon those who have persistently sought to compromise the science.

I have no serious quarrel with Lar's conduct as an administrator; his stated perspective, however, seems to be at odds with what he and other admins have actually done. --TS 15:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ZP5* Comment

Lar's closing summary, based on who an editor is [1] did not seem appropriate. This project is about enforcements , while some editors seem to have immunity based on who they are seems puzzling. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be linking to a close by LessHeard vanU. The upshot seems to be that Mark Nutley has a bee in his bonnet about Dr Connolley. --TS 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And were did you infer that from? I never brought that RFE mark nutley (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wrongly attributed authorship to you. I apologise for the confusion caused. --TS 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, ignore this. Let others handle it. ATren (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

e.c. Maybe that's because WMC has openly mocked him on several occasions? Not that he should respond in kind (he shouldn't), but let's not pretend that this "bee" came out of the blue. Not to mention it was not Mark's request. ATren (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

But to get back to the reequest linked by Zulu Papa 5, the upshot does seem to be that the admins thought it was conceived (by ATren, it turns out) solely because of who Dr Connolley is. That doesn't imply that if it's rejected those rejecting it do so solely because of who Dr Connolley is. I think that's a simple logic error.

To illustrate, suppose person A had ten sweets, identical except for their color, and person B advised him not to eat the blue one. If person B ignored this advice and did not give exceptional treatment to the blue one (making his own mind up if and when to eat the blue sweet) then it would not be correct to accuse person B of having a prejudice in favor of blue sweets, though it would not be unreasonable to suppose that person A's advice was motivated by a personal preoccupation with blue sweets.

LessHeard vanU said "Simply, if it had been any other editor than WMC there would not have been a Request." This doesn't mean he's giving special treatment to Connolley but, rather, that he thinks the request itself is a form of special treatment being accorded to Connolley on account of his identity. --TS 17:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the mix-up, Lar. Thanks for the correction TS. The close seemed like WMC has immunity. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am willing to explain, if asked, about the rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The NPA thing

I have asked user:Lars T. to remove [2] this PA [3] I am unsure whom it was directed at but i think user:FellGleaming was the target. He replied on my talk page No thanks, really I believe i am meant to bring this here so an admin can ask him to remove the comment or it would be tagged as inappropriate comment mark nutley (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You should make a Request on the project page, detailing the pa, your request and the response, and an uninvolved admin will action it. I suggest, in this matter, you might wish to report FellGleaming's first sentence of the comment to which Lars T might be responding too - after, of course, notifying FG and giving them the opportunity to redact the comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Standard PA. No need for probation enforcement. I have removed the offending part of the post and warned the editor. Are we now using probation enforcement for every standard wikipedia incivility? Polargeo (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to probation enforcement. Do you feel like you need to get involved in an argument with at least 20 other editors? Then you have come to the right place :) Polargeo (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Nope, but a decision that if a PA was made and the offender refused to remove it then it should be posted here for an admin to warn the editor and remove the PA, this was decided to help cut down on arguing on talk pages i think mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin. I have removed the PA and I have warned the user. Not under sanctions but under standard wikipedia procedures. I have had no previous involvement with that article or the editor warned. I will keep an eye on things and if the warning is ignored I will take it further. Polargeo (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well i could have asked an admin, but the last time i did that it created a massive drama, so as it is best to avoid drama i figured it would be best posted here :) Thanks mark nutley (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fell Gleaming 2 and common sense

I haven't changed my headline opinion on Fell Gleaming 2, that we shouldn't stray from the content area. However John and EpeeFleche do make a good point about common sense interpretation.

My initial feelings on this were that while we don't want to consider grievances from other content areas, if a topic-appropriate case were to be raised it would make sense to consider whether a proposed remedy (such as a topic ban) would be in the overall interest of Wikipedia; if it just gives the problem editor more time to concentrate on other areas where there is prima facie evidence of controversial editing by the problem editor, conduct sanctions of broader scope might be more appropriate.

LessHeard vanU hinted that a traditional RFC might work best. I think that may work best in this case.

However, I think more clarity in framing warnings might have helped in this case and perhaps in other cases, or alternatively a general resolution mandating common sense interpretation of existing warnings. Tasty monster (=TS ) 22:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with John's request being heard within this venue. His alleged misrepresentation is utterly without merit, and the quicker we establish that, the quicker we can move on to more productive ventures. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued from above because of browser limitations.

So before warnings about conduct are issued, it might be appropriate to consider whether the conduct problem in question is largely limited to the climate change topic (which I'm sure is the case for most requests) or whether instead the discussion has uncovered evidence that there is a more general conduct problem. I still don't think we should then consider requests coming from outside the conduct area, even if covered by a prior warming issued by this board. RFC, admin noticeboard, or individual admin action would be more appropriate. But a more general warming would send a much clearer message to the problem editor and put him on notice that his general conduct must improve.

The second alternative I raise, which I haven't thought through in any depth, would be to favor John and EpeeFleche's interpretation. I'm not sure we'd want to do that, but it has its merits. Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If you wish to consider off topic issues an RfC or similar is in order and project wide outcomes will be much stronger in this situation. There are plenty of on topic allegations that could be actioned that have been raised by KDP and SBHB if you wish to start a fresh enforcement issue this would be much stronger without the off topic initiation evident in this case. If editors start to consider off topic issues under CC general sanctions I will personally take this further. We should not even consider this as an option. Polargeo (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Success story

I'm happy to report that DeSmogBlog has just been promoted to Good Article. I really appreciate the cooperative efforts from KimDabelsteinPetersen, WMC, Dave Souza, ATren, JPRW, MastCell, Ratel, and Guettarda, marke nutley, and GoRight, among several others whose contributions have helped produce what the GA reviewer evidently found to be a fairly complete, balanced, and correctly formatted article. Although we had one content dispute over internet traffic rankings, we worked through it and moved on. I think it was an excellent example of cooperation, collaboration, and compromise and shows that it is possible for the AGW editors to work together to produce complete, NPOV articles. I've invited several of the same editors to do to Watts Up With That the same thing that we just did with DeSmogBlog and look forward to seeing the results. Thanks again everyone. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now read the above three times... who is it you want blocked, again? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 clearly thought we needed some good news here, but the broom people will not like it.  :¬) Cla68 is one of the more reasonable sceptic editors, BTW. ► RATEL ◄ 00:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming

I have no faith in this process, so all I'll do is make a comment that FellGleaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be flouting his terms of probation at Ian Plimer. Make of it what you may. ► RATEL ◄ 08:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If others also feel FG is in violation, and have some faith in the Probation enforcement process, then they can make a request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to file an enforcement request but the prospect of doing that makes me woozy. One might have thought that the idea of the probation was to create a relatively straightforward process, rather than to empower those causing problems through creation of an arduous, time-consuming process that imposes a barrier to enforcement of policy. One would, by the evidence so far, be mistaken.

On the immediate issue, FG has been acting slightly more reasonably of late. We'll see how long it lasts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I had become concerned at Fell Gleaming's curt dismissal of a concern I brought to him last week, but things have moved on. Following John's filing, which was eventually closed as outside the topic area, Fell Gleaming took a rest of nearly two days, and since then although I haven't followed his edits I have taken a quick look at his talk page, and there seems to be far less evidence of either third party concern about his fidelity to sources or problematic reactions by him to such concern.

I assume that either he is making a successful effort to respond, or else last week's problems were a brief lapse. Either way things are looking better. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear that FG is an intelligent editor who saw the heat and got out of the kitchen. He was given time to do this by a poorly conceived enforement request against him. There should still be a time, despite a few days gone past, for further issues to be raised, becasue he has followed this editing pattern across several articles, showing that it is a modus operandi rather than a short term lapse. I happen to think FG is an editor who knows how to follow wikipedia rules but is also an editor who is willing to stretch these to the limit and beyond. Therefore too much leeway is not a good thing. Polargeo (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't at all a bad thing if a wayward editor recognises his faux pas and takes an opportunity to recover. If evidence of long term boundary-testing should emerge at some later point, this would mean that an editor wasn't being responsive enough and then we might want to do something to improve the situation. Tasty monster (=TS ) 11:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A tactical head down for two days is clever avoidance of facing the issue and not a recognition of his faux pas. Polargeo (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Over-reliance on blogs

There are a small number of blogs that fall within the probation topic that may be regarded as reliable sources on the expertise of the blogs' authors. By and large, though, blogs are not reliable sources, and there are also severe problems of weighting especially with blogs that have a very slanted political tone.

I think it's time for a general motion ruling the use of blog sources in general, with the noted exceptions, as forbidden within the probation area. This would simply clarify our existing site-wide content policy, which seems to have been ignored for some time. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And no blog comments ever. That should not be countenanced at all on Wikipedia, and certainly not to attribute words to living persons. This must be stopped at once. Lax sourcing in the probation area must be stamped out with determination. Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I support not using blogs in the probation area, with, as TS suggests, some extremely limited exceptions (quoting the person who reliably is the author of the blog on what their opinion on something is... IF it is relevant, which is almost never is, being the main one) I'd go further and suggest they not be used at all, again with limited exceptions. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this an example of what you're talking about? Cla68 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Tim Lambert is a blogger with no professional expertise in this field. His comments often make sense but even when they do they should not be used to source statements of fact on the subject.

In the case of the article in question, the subject's lack of credibility on science has been demonstrated repeatedly by reliable sources and our article should reflect that, and any statement of fact by him on matters of science should be presented with according care.

It isn't necessary to couple every one of his statements on science with a refutation, especially if the experts do not take the statement seriously enough to refute it. Indeed, that would be reasonable grounds to cut the neglected statement altogether. Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blog comments?

There is a nice article / interview with Curry http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/. You'll see me there too :-). I would like to use some of that, and some of Curry's comments. I think it is very clear that the comments there really are from Curry - but I'm not quite sure what rules we are applying William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Blog comments are not reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Impeccable", but not reliable :) Guettarda (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not impeccable either. Wow. Broken record. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When you change you mind you can strike your comment. All of it, of course, since the sanction hinges on your assertion that blog comments are "impeccable". Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that's correct. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar's involvement

When the hell are we going to stop Lar making such biased and ridiculous attempts to get maximum sanctions against editors such as WMC. When are we going to stop him from commenting as an univnvolved admin when he is addressing an editor who he has personally provoked on several occasions and has clear personal animosity towards. That is not, and I repeat not uninvolved when it comes to assessing a 1RR situation on a BLP. Lar you lost the last little tiny tiny micro shred of credibility you ever had on this matter some time ago and you just keep on reinforcing your ludicrous bias time and again. Polargeo (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give diffs, or at least something more specific? Suggesting sanctions against an editor, even repeatedly, is not itself a sign of bias.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well this is fairly silly provocation from Lar. What are you afraid of? A challenge to WMC no less! Followed by extreme over the top requests for sanctions. Lar is as personally involved as they come, time to bow out. Polargeo (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh and before you ask this is the simple explanation WMC gave for removal of content on his own talkpage. Showing Lar is turing up and making unwelcome comments on WMC's talkpage and then goading WMC when they are removed. I don't think this sounds at all uninvolved, does it? Polargeo (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Even whilst we are having this discussion he is busy pushing his ban WMC agenda. It is so sadly blatant that if it wasn't being condoned it would be funny. Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar's involvement is very much like MN's attempts to write RFCs. Three times he has tried to write a neutral RFC, and three times everyone has agreed that his RFC was non-neutral and needs to be re-written; but MN has never managed to see the problems himself. Similarly, Lar will never see his own problems William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But perhaps I am an aluminum pot, with a bit of discoloration, and you are a cast iron kettle, blackened from hard use. I think I'm far better at introspection than you are. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting personal comment. It is good to see you have given up all illusion of impartiality. Polargeo (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also interesting that Lar came down on User:Stephan Schulz like the proverbial tonne of bricks [4] when he considered that Stephan was an "involved admin" in the ridiculously weak request for arbitration. [5], just follow the thread and weep at how over the top Lar is there. Lar is weighing in with all of his might in a rather shockingly biased way in this area and yet still claims uninvolved status for himself because he hasn't contributed to the articles. Polargeo (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I will give you the advice (more like a warning) which I've been given in the past: take your evidence to RFC/U or the arbitration committee, and stop making accusations against Lar here. ATren (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to give diffs. I did. Surely it is up to CC enforcement admins to either take note of Lar or not as they do with everyone else. When Lar makes a big admin decision rather than blowing a lot of hot air about that is the time to take it further. I am very much of the old school, deal with it at a local level and don't escalate everything. When Lar actually starts to use his admin tools on this I will take it further, until then a silly comment in the wrong section by Lar can and should be dealt with here. Polargeo (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, I suggest you back off a little. The other admins are handling the issue. Over the past few months Lar has gradually become his own worst witness; he has now descended to calling his fellow admins a "mob." So you don't need to say anything. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a diff where I directly call my fellow admins a mob. Hint: unless you are not very good with analogies, you won't be able to. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you seem to have quite the bee in your bonnet. I think your shrillness does just about enough refutation, as is. But to be clear: my comments are not in the wrong section. Nor are they "silly" or "hot air". Your tone is unhelpful. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you are talking to yourself, or should be William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Charming. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, my tone is unhelpful to your agenda maybe. The bee in my bonnet was lodged there by your actions. Polargeo (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you all have a problem with Lar, then follow the dispute resolution procedure: Lar's talk page, RfC, ArbCom, something in that order. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments on validity of sanctions

With so many questions, rightly or wrongly, about how uninvolved the participating admins have become it seems that it would be a good idea to open an RFC or whatever is appropriate for the wider community to give it's opinions on how valid these sanctions still are. It may be that the closed environment of specific CC sanctions is not as much help as was originally intended. Weakopedia (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not good to send this focussed section off on a tangent so I have split this into a new section. I think these sanctions should be scrapped and my opinion has never changed on this since the moment I realised they were in place. I firmly believe that the initial discussion that these sanctions arose from was so poorly advertised that a consensus cannot be considered to have been reached in the first place. Polargeo (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, for what it's worth.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Jimbo's idea that the climate change articles should be treated the way the Scientology articles were. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You, of course, realize that that will result in "Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Climate Change or Climate Change related persons and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year," right? I mean, line up the trucks, because I'm completly on board with that. Hipocrite (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. You have no idea how bizarre it is for me to pay this much attention to a topic I don't care about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Start compiling the list. I'll list only people on my "side." You list only people on yours. Hipocrite (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The people on "my side" have all stopped editting these articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know you alledge that. Ok, list only people on Marknutley's side. Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you done with your list, yet? Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Compilation of such a list is probably a violation of WP:AGF or something. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How can we file our joint request for baninantion if we can't even draft a complaint? I'm prepared to go. Are you? Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To ArbCom? Yes, I'd be willing to file a joint request with you. I won't have time to work on it today, though. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, to here. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The admins here I don't believe have the authority to do a "Scientology" type ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

These hypothetical distractions are going nowhere. Give up or cut to the chase. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. This whole "I'd ban both sides!" pattina of balancedness deserves evaluation. We all know AQFK would ban WMC, but no one knows who on his side hd 'd get rid of (Queue "I'm not on a side" objection). Let's get to it. List time. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I proposed something like this a year ago during an ArbCom case (I'd have to find which one) that all the AGW regulars be topic banned. I think that would help resolve many of the problems. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

For the historical precedent to this approach, see Arnaud Amalric. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested the same a few times before. I suppose I'm not sure what the consequences would be, but it doesn't sound so bad right now.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Why are we getting into this trench warfare?"

It's a painfully obvious that the sanctions are being used as a tool to win content disputes against one's ideological opponents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What a shocker. Hipocrite (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then what's the point of these sanctions? Has the dispute been resolved yet? It's been 4 months since the probation started. Are we finally close to a resolution? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of these sanctions is to lower traffic on WP:ANI related to climate change. They have been wildly sucessful in that goal. You appear to believe that these sanctions were designed to resolve disputes - in that, you are incorrect. It is impossible to resolve disputes when a non-trivial segment of the disputant population on both sides has goals at odds with the creation of an encyclopedia without removing those actors, and you, among others, have been vehimently opposed to removing those actors, though you show promise above. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why is it called Dispute resolution? Oh no, if it were up to me, I'd topic-ban both warring factions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic banning both warring factions would simply allow for more warring factions to come in and fill the boots. Since the creation of this process the disruption created by the war has been a lot less, it's true the dispute resolution expression is a bit poor, really its more like disruption control. The one-RR has also been very helpful. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You state the disruption has been less but this is based on what? Less stuff turning up at ANI becasue it is dealt with in a more battleground partisan way here? Polargeo (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Less disruption to articles and less protecting of articles and less revert wars, yes this page has become the full focus of the war, which is imo much better than BLP articles continually being revert warred and having to be protected. Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is meant to be about CC sanctions not about BLP articles. Now we have the case where a single perfectly legitimate revert on a BLP ties up several admins for a considerable time. Where is the improvement there? Polargeo (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There are BLP articles in the CC sanction project, multiple of them. I don't know about this single revert tying up multiple admins. Its an awful mess, everyone knows that. Any Administrator that is even prepared to try to help clean it up should get a medal. One option is just delete all the climate change articles, that would stop it. Disrupted articles with POV issues are of no value to readers anyway and do nothing but weaken wikipedias reputation.Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

if it were up to me, I'd topic-ban both warring factions - you, of course, aren't a warring faction. Your edits are pure as the virgin snow and like you are free from all traces of bias? But I don't believe that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not perfect and never said I was. In any case, I'd be perfectly willing to be part of such a topic ban (if that's what the powers that be decide) for the good of the project. This isn't a topic I care about so it's no big loss for me. Hell, I would be happier had I never stumbled across this mess in the first place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For someone who purports to care nothing about this you're making a very poor show of not caring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that I didn't care about WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC, stop baiting other editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar (moved from project page)

Respons(es) to this post:

moved content

• • Your caution is misplaced. There is a cadre here who spring to WMC's defense like clockwork. Whether you admit it or not. I grow weary of being the lone voice (among admins) calling this out though. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hint: If you are all alone, maybe it's because you are wrong? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephan: Often the case. Usually the way to bet, in fact. But not always.

By simple application of conditional probability, that means you are more often than not wrong even if you think you are right... (injected in the middle of Lar's comment by --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Except that you are overgeneralizing. I refer to the general case. What is your sample set of times that I've been the lone voice where the outcome is known? I don't think you have a big enough sample set to properly apply the general principle to my specific case. Some people are right even when they are lone voices. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not... Perhaps we should allow WMC to be as snarky as he wishes, and allow your cadre to control the discourse in this topic area for the good of the encyclopedia, and we should remove items, even when sourced to the NYT, if they are inconvenient to your narrative that there is no doubt about the methods and tactics used by the researchers, and perhaps we should allow WMC and others to insert negative material into the BLPs of skeptics whenever they wish, even when sourced to the worst sort of attack blogs, because that's just how things are around here. Yes, perhaps I'm wrong and should stop pointing that stuff out. It's very tempting to walk away and leave your cadre to it. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe your conclusion is in error, although I suspect it is the selection of assumptions, rather than the math per se, and the common English confusion about “you” which can mean the particular or the general. I read (what I presume was Lar’s respone) 'Often the case. Usually the way to bet, in fact. as referring to the generic case, not the specific case of Lar.. Maybe I misread, but I think not.SPhilbrickT 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Asserts facts not in evidence" is how you normally put it. "My cadre" is another exhibition of battleground mentality. And I don't have a sample - I assumed good faith that your claims about your rate of being wrong is right. Or was that just rhetorical mock-humility? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a lone voice just can't stand against a mob even if the voice is right. But if WMC gets off scot free, again, then I think it's perhaps a sign that there is no hope of ever leveling the playing field and the article control you all exert will continue indefinitely, regardless of how matters proceed in the real world. What I can't figure out is what you all are scared of. Why is it unacceptable to even acknowledge there is any dissent or disquiet (even among the faithful) about the methods used to frame this debate in the real world? The truth will set you free. Supposedly. But I'm fresh out of sackcloth and ashes so ... ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Asserts facts not in evidence" is how you normally put it. And your language shows a clear battleground mentality. Who is "you all"? And you are aware that "in the real world", the first three (and so far only) investigations of the CRU email event have all found no substance to the allegations against science or scientists, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

::Please remove Lar's comments entirely from this section based on his last comment. Totally totally inappropriate accusations and content discussion, both partisan and out of place on a discussion about WMC's revert on the Judith Curry BLP. Remove my comment too whilst you are at it. Polargeo (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your request is off base. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

end moved content

This is a matter that should be laid before the Arbitration Committee

Lar has stood alone among uninvolved admins recently in advocating a one-year ban from the topic area for William M Connolley. On the basis of exactly the same evidence, at least three other uninvolved admins have gone so far as to commend Dr Connolley for his actions, not merely to exonerate him.

Lar has made some serious accusations against his fellow admins that, if true, mean that Dr Connolley is engaged in serious abuse of Wikipedia and this probation cannot or will not do anything about it, and that the admins as a whole are actively conniving in the abuse. The credibility of this probation has been brought into serious question. Lar isn't normally given to wild accusations. He has high credibility, which makes his accusations all the more damaging.

In order to resolve this, I think Lar, and those editors who support his accusations, should assemble their evidence and petition the Arbitration Committee, in the usual manner, to consider their case. I do not think it would be healthy for Wikipedia if Lar were to continue making such serious accusations against his fellow admins without seeking fully to resolve the matter. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is merit in this but I want to clarify, the serious accusations I make are not against "my fellow admins"... at least one of the people I see routinely springing to WMC's defense is not an admin, and I have no issue with any of the admins who have been doing a lot of enforcement work here, including those who do not agree with me that this particular incident is sanctionable. But I have to decide if it's worth the bother of a case... perhaps I should just shrug and walk away, just as convinced I am right as ever, but not caring about this matter any more. Wikipedia isn't the shining city on the hill it once was for me. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so to clarify, you think there is a problem with William M. Connolley's edits, and with what you perceive as a crowd of enablers. On this occasion you accept the judgement of the other admins as legitimate dissent, on the basis of the evidence they have seen, but you think the underlying problem is an abusive editor and his enablers. Is that about right? --TS 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a close enough approximation for our purposes. The nuance is that WMC isn't the only problematic editor in the crowd and sometimes he's one of the enablers rather than the enablee. ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, how do you account for the continuing imbalance in enforcement? Most of those subject to serious sanctions, over a very long period, have been editors attempting to insert minority opinions as fact or as representing a serious challenge to mainstream opinions. Connolley on the other hand tends to favor strong representation of mainstream opinions, and it can be assumed I suppose that those to whom you refer are of similar mind. Now if the other uninvolved admins are being presented with evidence that such editing has led to undue whitewashing of our articles, removing minority opinions inappropriately, and that this predominantly involves actions by Dr Connolley, why do they nearly all disagree with you? I mean, if they're not among the enablers, why would they do that?

Or to ignore the allegations of bias that often surround this issue, perhaps you object solely to the methods of Connolley and those who tend to agree with him, and not to their broad judgement on content. Still the question is there: why do the non-enabling, uninvolved admins disagree with you? --TS 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I "object solely to the methods of Connolley and those who tend to agree with him" (well, almost solely, I have some quibbles around the edges, some doubts about emphasis, but I accept the science, unlike some) As to why the other admins disagree? I wonder that myself. Perhaps they don't have the stomach for it. I certainly don't. For if I had, I'd be in there blocking and topic banning instead of merely putting my views forward. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Just take a minute and look at the kind of content you're alleging is being kept out via spin control. In one little example we have one sentence sourced to a blog comment, another that includes quotes not in the source coupled with verbatim copying not in quotation marks and very obvious spin. And there's a pattern of this sort of behaviour, not by one editor. That addition was proposed by Tillman and supported by Mark Nutley and Cla68. And this is not an isolated incident, it's par for the course.

Your characterisation of the situation does not resemble reality. That's all there is to it. It's not that legitimate minority opinions are being excluded. Curry said what she said, and it can be sourced to reliable sources like Revkin and Discover. This is then being spun by the blogosphere, and the spin is added back to the articles. Sure it's attributed to reliable sources, and probably in good faith by people who read the bloggers and repeat their spin. So sure, the spun material is attributed to Revkin.

It's easy to look at the cited sources and say yes, this is "impeccably" sourced. But if you don't read the sources, and read them carefully, you're simply perpetuating a falsehood. It's not good enough to just check if the sources are there. If want to defend the sourcing you need to read the sources, carefully, and compare them with the text. Or, if you can't be bothered to do that, you can refrain from commenting on the quality of the sourcing. Guettarda (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were still editing in the probation area I would probably take a closer look to see if there was evidence that the article, and possibly others started at around the same time, was created as a coatrack to import statements that would otherwise have little or no place on Wikipedia. We do seem to have an alarmingly high number of biographies of fringe figures in the global warming dispute, and the biographies of scientists who have long been eminent in the field have sometimes only been created or expanded from stub because somebody thought a whiff of manufactured scandal of more note than long years in the academic field. One particularly painful example of the latter is Keith Briffa, which was created or recreated after author-requested deletion in order to serve as a coatrack for so-called "Climategate" allegations. I'm sure Doctor Briffa, a painstaking and conscientious scientist, never imagined in his wildest dreams that investigation of tree rings could lead to such excitement. --TS 20:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

On whether it's "worth the bother", what bother would it incur to you? Cla68 has taken the trouble of compiling lots of evidence that he thinks shows Dr Connolley as an abusive editor. He may well be more than willing to present it to the Committee. It seems to me that all you would have to do--at most--is assent to this path, rather than your current path of making broad accusations of bad faith against a number of vaguely identified editors. You must know that your current conduct calls the entire probation into question, and indeed suggests that it is actively harmful to Wikipedia. You should probably, I think, accept some responsibility for seeing that a serious dispute like this is resolved with a minimum of damage to Wikipedia. --TS 16:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m not following why Lar should bring this to the Arbitration committee, as opposed to those who hint that Lar is out of line. While Lar has expressed his unhappiness with the way interactions have occurred, I don’t see any evidence Lar has expressed that the current dispute resolution process has failed to work. Isn’t that what triggers (or should trigger) an Arb Com case? SPhilbrickT 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar has lost credibility as an uninvolved admin with his comments. TS is trying to deal with this in the most non-confrontational way he can. I personally believe this is best dealt with by a swift comment and leave it at that. If Lar wishes to push his agenda further, TS has highlighted where he can do this. Polargeo (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Others who think Lar is harming Wikipedia with wild accusations could also bring the case before the Committee, but I don't think that would make much sense unless Lar continues to make accusations of bad faith against a group of vaguely identifiable editors working within the probation area, and effectively labelling this probation as having degenerated into a forum for rubber-stamping the abuse of Wikipedia. If he stops venting those accusations then it doesn't matter if he pursues dispute resolution or not, because the dispute will have ceased to escalate of its own accord. I strongly suggest that, should Lar wish to pursue this, he avoid doing so as he has in the past few hours, by highly unproductive comments on the probation page.

I have absolute faith in Lar's good will towards the project and his ability to do the right thing to improve our chances of reaching the project goals while resolving this dispute. I'm suggesting that he do so by the most obvious method. There may be other methods as productive or more so. --TS 17:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

He's been making accusations like that for months, if not longer. But I believe he can change, and hope he will. After all, he recently promised to bring "good Lar" back. Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar approaches these issues with balance and common sense. He points out simple truths that are obvious to most uninvolved readers. He is brave enough to say what many people are afraid to say in this poisonous topic area. We need more Lars, not less. Thparkth (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst we are discussing this Lar has continued to respond as an "uninvolved" admin with general mud slinging against WMC here. The fact that he takes every smallest opportunity, such as a poorly conceived enforcement request on a clearly valid revert to a BLP to try to maximise sanctions against an editor who he has previously taunted absolutely sucks. Lars sniping against WMC during basic enforcement decisions has now become disruptive to wikipedia. TS has highlighted where Lar can bring up these issues should he wish to take them further, other admins have suggested his comments and methodology are out of place here. I suggest further attempts by Lar to act as an uninvolved admin in this situation should be actioned against as pure disruption and provocation. Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)