User talk:2over0

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Page deletion and possible stalking ...

I had noticed a conversation at [1] where Mark was working on an article on the Gore Effect in his user space. Bozmo, you, and even KDP seemed OK with him trying to work on it there.

Seeing this I went to take a look and I made a few formatting and cleanup edits to help Mark out. This morning I find that ChrisO has appeared out of no where and had the page speedily deleted. We will pursue an appeal of this. If you think that it is acceptable for Mark to work on this in his own user space as your comments seemed to suggest (since you took not action to have it removed yourself), could you please weigh in on this?

Also, I believe that this MAY be an indication that ChrisO is beginning to stalk me so I have placed a notice to that effect on his talk page indicating that if he persists appropriate resolutions will be pursued. This is just FYI for now and to register that I will be paying attention to this issue and may be seeking assistance in this regards should the problem continue to manifest itself. --GoRight (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody would say that that draft should be moved to articlespace any time soon, but glancing through it I considered: potentially there is coverage of this term that is not in-universe; public figures are subject to satire as a matter of course; and the page is not indexed by search engines (part of {{userspace draft}}). On the other hand, Dank makes a compelling case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. I am going to wait and see how the draft develops over the next few days, but thank you for the heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I've responded to GoRight's completely false claims about me here, following Tony Sidaway's request for article probation sanctions against GoRight for what Tony characterises as a "rampage" today. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have decided to make the following public statement, [2]. I do, however, appreciate the create way that CO was able to call my actions a "rampage" without actually having himself called it a "rampage". I'll have to remember that technique.  :)

Climate change related discussion

Since you appear to be currently online, invite your input here. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good conclusion from the available data, but when I started looking at Carbon tax I decided I was too tired to be confident of making good decisions and instead went to bed. I will check it out if Lar does not solve it first, thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please judge

I've been trying, I thought quite patiently, to work through some coverage of global cooling in the 2000s in the global cooling article. It's been half a month with little serious accommodation going on with getting something acceptable up, even an acknowledgment of popular press interest. The talk's gone dead and so absent anybody declaring they didn't want a section at all, I stubbed one, text to be determined later. I joked that I was being bold on this most timid of edits. William M Connolley reverted within a few minutes calling a section heading and a stub notice "reckless".

As I looked at the history of the talk page, I noticed the following edit notice from WMC "people have seemed to give up even bothering to respond to you; that seems like a good idea to me" which I had overlooked before. This put the following section in a different light User talk:Guettarda#Tut. I took it originally for some odd joke and tried to play along (not very well). Now it looks a bit more like bringing somebody friendly in line that had gotten off sides on an attempt to simply not cooperate on edits, relying on me to either go away or go down the road of editing without a consensus and getting reverted to death over it. This can't be consistent with policy if it's real. Am I adding 2 plus 2 and getting 5 or does this stink as much as I think it stinks. TMLutas (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

People have got depressingly used to TML pushing his POV there, which is why most have given up. TML's idea is fundamentally misconstrued; it is like someone trying to push serious discussion of aether into general relativity, and then complaining that none of the editors will "accomodate" him. He has been told this again and again, but won't listen William M. Connolley (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made it very clear that I wanted one of two behaviors. Editors should either say that they do not want a section at all and give their reasons for it or they should help pitch in on improving the text until it arrives at consensus and then we publish it. There are exactly zero texts that others have suggested that I rejected. How this can reasonably be construed as POV pushing escapes me. Please read the relevant text. If I have pushed anything it is that some people in reliable source land have talked about global warming during the 2000s and we should have some coverage of that. Since WMC's group blog, RealClimate has published a bet offer with his name on the byline wagering against global cooling believers, it is reasonable to think that he is aware of global cooling interest. In fact, that very article could go in the 2000s section (or maybe we could have a subsection on bets, there are others). When an editor pretends that an article he wrote in a forum sometimes used as a reliable source simply does not exist and nobody has spoken about global cooling in the past decade, it's destructive and it needs to stop.

Think about it. I'm accused of POV pushing for a section headline consisting of a decade and a section stub tag. Does this strike you as normal? TMLutas (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit bored with saying I'm not a member of RC. But maybe if I say it often enough people will listen. RC didn't get any replies to the bet, so I think it rather disproves your contention. You're accused of POV pushing for the text you've repeatedly tried to put into that section. Putting in an empty section with no clue as to what text you might add (or so you now seem to be claiming) is merely pointless and provocative William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TMLutas, the other editors at Global cooling seem to think that your proposals do not deal with the topic of the article, and the current hatnote indicates that material well outside the mid-20th century would be off topic. On another hand, the More recent section already deals with a quarter century of aftermath, so there is an argument for continuing to build on that structure. Much as it pains me to admit that publication in PRL does not automatically convey relevance and truth, the cosmic ray paper appears to be a non-starter. The current examples are nuclear winter or some other event throwing globally relevant quantities of dust into the air, and a DoD commissioned study (as opposed to just funded); I believe that the argument being made is that these concerns have received significantly more independent coverage than Lu (2009). Have you tried Global warming controversy? The other point you make, that 1998 was exceptionally warm, seems to come up only in political rather than scientific contexts. Politics of global warming does not quite look like a fit, but Instrumental temperature record might be a good place to check. Disclaimer: I have by no means read all of our climate change articles, I am just guessing from Template:Global warming.

I am sure you had only the best of intentions in creating the contentless section in the spirit of collaboratively encouraging other editors to expand the article, but can you see how other editors at that page might view it as disruptive? One of the weaknesses of a volunteer project is that we all choose where to direct our efforts (although if anyone starts arguing British Isles terminology in a climate change article, my head may explode); trying to require that other editors work on improving a particular section is completely inappropriate. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the global cooling page is appropriate only for the 1970s scare a priori than of course the more current global cooling content does not fit on the 1970s scare page. It does, however, fit someplace, perhaps as its own page. Do you have any suggestions for a title, perhaps to go into the article incubator so we don't get into the nonsense of the speedy delete garbage that sometimes plagues new articles? TMLutas (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

MN close

I object to the wording of your close; see the page. I don't think you've thought it through carefully. The fact that you *are* closing it like this... hmm, well, that's another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC, why not present diffs there to support your case? There's only vague accusations from you. ATren (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing vague there. If you're asking for edits by MN that could be deemed problematic but not reuiring enforcement, I'm sure I could dig some up but I'd (a) rather not waste my time and (b) it would be better for peace+quiet not to stir up trouble like that. But If I need to in order to get the close changed, I will William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I've just read your comment there. You've misunderstood. I did *not* say I wanted this to stay open William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I misunderstood. I'll read it again. ATren (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC) ^{I've struck my comment there ATren (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)}

Struck the proposal pending further discussion. Thank you for mentioning this point. Your objection is fair - in any way problematic is probably too strong - but I meant the non-italicized text as explanatory, with the actual recorded result only to be the sentence in italics. For your other point, I left a comment there; I would not say that a statement to the effect of nobody is allowed to change this qualifies as a good faith objection, but less gameable wording is probably in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go look there William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Can you tell him to take it to talk? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I protected the page on The Wrong Version and found the WQA. Could you point me to the relevant 1RR restriction, please? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only point you to this This. I don't know where the exact page is but MF has been involved long enough to know the restrictions - although he knows that if he reaches 4RR he can get his version protected by you. Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh and you missed the first personal attack on the page Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now is your chance to reinstate his personal attack Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin Canterbury Tail is very familiar with the whole British Isles debate and should be firt point of call. BigDunc 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He became "Involved" long ago. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point - the first post was not as over the top as yours and contained some productive material, but the tone was certainly combative. The regular editors at that page can work out their preferred terminology, or the Specific Examples page can. I have requested clarification on 1RR from Black Kite. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Black kite has retired, his last edit was this BigDunc 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bah, humbug; thank you for pointing that out. Does anyone else have links to specific sanctions that might be in force on these articles? I will need to consider whether further action is warranted and whether I can devote the time to do so. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked HK Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth the effort. I don't think there's a 1RR anywhere apart from British Isles. BK is one of an increasing number of editors who have been ground down by the BI issue to the point of retirement. Mister Flash (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

BK was ground down by other Admins enabling disruption Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles article has a 1RR placed on it due to edit warring but this could also be dealt with under The Troubles arbcom. BigDunc 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as my two cents. Only the British Isles article itself is under 1RR. There have been discussions about restrictions, MOSs etc for British Isles on other articles, but no consensus has ever been gained. So with regards to BI, it's only the article itself, everything else is open to normal Wikipedia rules unless it's covered by another restriction or policy such as The Troubles etc. I'd like to see some other restrictions around it, or a proper agreed upon usage guide, to stop this constant edit warring with the usual suspects on both sides, but frankly I can't be bothered anymore. It's like re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic, but people keep adding more chairs.

However at the risk of sounding unpopular, HighKing's edit to the article was incorrect. He replaced British Isles with Home Nations which was completely wrong. Home Nations does not include Ireland, and a player from Ireland (state not island) had won it previously. Whether the British Isles should have been in there in the first place or not is a different matter. Canterbury Tail talk 02:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear. The edit was discussed in advance here. A place that Mister Flash well knows about. If he didn't agree with the edit, there's no excuse for edit warring like he continues to do. His editing and attitude is disrputive, and his edit summaries and editing are full of unfounded allegations and in breach of WP:CIVIL. It's an interesting experiment to watch a British editor be allowed behave in this way, with no sanctions of any kind. I wonder how long I, or any other Irish editor, would be allowed to behave in this manner? Double standards, stinks like hell. --HighKing (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, didn't realise it had been discussed elsewhere. And if MF knew of that discussion and consensus, well then he's edit warring and editing against it. I still think Home Nations is incorrect, and in fact nothing should be put in there at all. British Isles just smacks of trying to put it in for no reason.

I've warning him over that, and if there is consensus we can lift the protection and revert to HighKing's edit which has the community consensus as shown. Canterbury Tail talk 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I took care of the unprotection and reversion to the version preferred by consensus there. As I do not recall ever seeing a formal definition of either of these terms prior to seeing the edit wars here, I would appreciate if someone would check what I left. HighKing and others - in future when making edits based on a consensus elsewhere than the talkpage of the article you are editing (and sometimes even then), it can be helpful to link to the relevant discussion or mention it at the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, thank you for your reply. My tentacles are a bit full of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation right now (see e.g. about two thirds of the threads on this page) ... but roving around and reverting each other, which these editors seem to be enjoying, is disruptive and completely at odds with the aims of the project. Hey TPWs - free unblock for anyone who can work out a solution short of ArbCom. Okay, I cannot actually do that, but seriously - you would have my gratitude. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)The original notice was placed on various editors Talk pages - the version posted on my Talk page was here as a result of mass reverting being done by a number of editors: See this revision of BlackKites Talk page. He posted the message at:

• 20:02, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:MidnightBlueMan ‎ (→Bold, Revert, Discuss: rp)
• 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Vintagekits ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
• 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Jeni ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
• 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Tfz ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
• 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:BritishWatcher ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
• 19:55, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Canterbury Tail ‎ (→BRD warnings: tweak)
• 19:55, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Canterbury Tail ‎ (→BRD warnings: new section)
• 19:52, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:TharkunColl ‎ (→Bold, Revert, Discuss: new section)
• 19:51, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:HighKing ‎ (→Bold, Revert, Discuss: new section)
• 19:51, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:MidnightBlueMan ‎ (BRD warning)

And this warning was posted to Mister Flash (still visible on his Talk page) as well as others:

• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:GoodDay ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Þjóðólfr ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:HighKing ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:MidnightBlueMan ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:LevenBoy ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Mister Flash ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)

How many warnings do you think Mister Flash needs? --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor q

I am a bit surprised by what appears to be an unprovoked personal attack on me here: Talk:Global_warming#1.29_homeostasis_2.29_established_fact. Did I miss something> my comment was intended to be observational and I was surprised to see it termed "childish spite" as well as the various "unlike many editors" comments which are generally unhelpful. Anyway if you think the response was deserved perhaps you should collapse the thread and I'll forget it. --BozMo talk 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Had you written But given some of your other comments I guess getting the term right is not going to be a worry at me I'd have been offended. So while I think L has grossly over-reacted, your hands aren't quite clean. There are some other "attacks" on others, too, that might merit note, e.g. [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. My comment did follow on immediately from [4] where he did make some comments about his personal definitions of things. You would have been offended because you are not fumbling words in Global Warming. If someone had made it to me in a subject where I was struggling with words I think I would have taken it without offence. --BozMo talk 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah well. I leave the should-there-be-action type stuff to you admin types :-). Aside: his Bertport... honestly, if I want to be contradicted without insight or explanation I have a 14 year old nephew who is willing (nay, eager) to oblige; I don't need to come to wikipedia for that. could be taken amiss too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WMC's reading above, at least based on a quick review of the section. As Lar is fond of saying, there are some awfully sharp elbows going around. A while back I edited fairly extensively with (read: against) Ludwigs2 on some alternative medicine and pseudoscience articles. The above assessment looks fair to me, but I intend to minimize my interactions with Ludwigs2 in an administrative capacity. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of editor

Do you agree with my comments here: [5] --BozMo talk 10:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your comments here and here, but the other editor stirs neither my memory nor my log, so I will need to check. TS notified them of the probation. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there it is - they were edit warring some email material at the beginning of December, and then again last week. Hrm. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement

Things are starting to back up at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Needs some uninvolved admin intervention (that's you!) rather than the usual suspects bickering William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started but would like some second opinions. --BozMo talk 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Down to one where I need a second and one where I am still considering. One of the new cases I was looking into already, but one of them really surprised me. Some of the other comments there sure do not surprise me, unfortunately. Thanks for the heads up on the surfeit. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have requested intervention to your action at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboardJPatterson (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jpat34721 Topic Ban. Thank you for notifying me. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's chat for a second about Sirwells (talk · contribs)

You templated Sirwells (talk · contribs) with the climate change template - his only edit of the year - wait, sorry, year and a half - was to revert the lead of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident to remove the sourced information about the response of the mainstream to the emails.

Now, I could revert him - but wait, I can't, because I wasted my revert, and yes, I'm talking about it as an entitlement, on a driveby lead reverter from yesterday. I guess I could pull out my iphone, walk down to starbucks, create a whole bunch of accounts, and play the same game that the denialists are playing - that would probably work. I mean, every new participant gets one free revert, right? Wait, I know, I'm supposed to engage him on the talk page. Here, I'll write something on the talk page. It'll get responded to by the usual suspects, but Sirwells? He's in the wind. We'll get another reverter tommorow - I guess I should respond to him on the talk page!

I suggest that this attempt at probation has failed. All edits that are by editors who did not discuss them on the talk page prior should be revertable on sight without penalty. If the editors are discussing their edits on the talk page, not reaching consensus, and making the edits anyway, sure, I'll jump through the stupid probation hoops. I don't know why I need to waste my time on driveby SPAs, however. Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That could have been put less confrontationally, and I wish you had, but the substance is correct. SW's history is:

1. 2010-01-12T06:50:45 (hist | diff | all) Climatic Research Unit hacking incident ‎ (missing citations, vague, violates npovWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC))
2. 2008-06-09T02:14:19 (hist | diff | all) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→3RR concern)
3. 2008-06-08T23:05:18 (hist | diff | all) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→3RR concern)
4. 2008-06-08T23:02:00 (hist | diff | all) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→3RR concern)

so this is someone who has been called in from outside to revert. I *don't* agree that the probabtion has failed, though it could be tweaked to be better. Allowing people to revert driveby SPA's, as H puts it, seems fair. Would need a clear edit comment (a la "claim BLP exemption to 3RR") and a clear defn of driveby. Is it needed? Not sure. I would be nice to have, but the obvious suspects will whinge William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries on the tone - I understood from User talk:Hipocrite#Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and my good friend Captain Obvious that there is a great deal of frustration associated with trying to build and maintain a quality article in this kind of environment. One revert per editor per day is easy to enforce and a simple modification of existing editing standards, but is even more prone to the same sorts of gaming as 3RR. Providing a perverse incentive to create socks or collude rather than collaborate is definitely a problem. It also creates an artificially sharp distinction between the cases where two undiscussed drive-by editors choose to contribute within minutes of each other as opposed to hours apart - reverting two edits at the same time as edit-edit-revert-revert only counts as one revert, but edit-revert-edit-revert counts as two. Then there is the problem of imbalance of time and effort from the good faith contributors. The system should be designed to make simple maintenance easier than continual disruption (on a somewhat related note, I have been fairly loose in semi-protecting climate change articles that I notice seem to be attracting a lot of socks or blog-recruits, but am bad about remembering to check RFPP - do please feel free to drop in if it looks like an article might need attention). I admit that sometimes in my editing I will revert with only a cursory edit summary, and only bother with the effort of a full explanation on the talkpage if anyone comes back to object; in some ways this pattern is less than ideal, but I do understand the desire to leverage your time effectively.

Personally, I prefer to focus on content rather than editors - let everyone revert any edit for free unless it has been discussed and consensus reached first. This puts a pretty heavy bias on whatever Wrong Version is in place when this is instituted, but most of our articles are pretty good most of the time. Documented obstructionism and negotiating in bad faith to be topic bannable, of course. This has all the usual problems with Consensus and probably encourages polarization, but it at least increases the cost and behavioral detectability of maintaining a sock army (and, you know, might lead to better articles than if all the discussion is via edit summary).

Instituting an exception for "obvious but not vandalism" reverts makes a certain amount of sense, but if we all could agree on a definition of "obvious" WP:Dispute resolution would be a lot less noisy. It misses the spirit of WP:Edit warring, but unfortunately hits the letter. Please keep in mind that this is just my extemporaneous musing on the topic, not policy. In the spirit of brainstorming, would revert any and every edit that is undiscussed, with re-insertion to be considered edit warring be viable? This would be a fairly dramatic departure from the wiki-wiki model, and would require an active buy-in from at least most of the active contributors at a particular article; it also creates a pretty heavy enforcement burden - checking content against the talkpage and every previous revision takes time and effort and is prone to errors.

Better suggestions and pointing out the weak points and instances of failure continue to be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I came here looking to complain to 2over0 for unbalanced harrassment on my talk page and I find this. Guys, I haven't made a single edit on any article in over a week. I AM NOT A SOCK OR MEAT PUPPET. I know you may not like my talk page contributions, but frankly that should not be my problem. I tell it the way I see it and my posts are intended to address the active discussion, and to try and bring balance to what is obviously a one-sided forum. We all know it's the RC'ers and alarmists who have control of wikipedia. My suggestion to all of you is: find a more constructive use of your time than to make personal vendetta against me. I'm a short-timer here anyways. Sirwells (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if by word or implication I have given the impression that I think you are a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. My interest in those articles extends solely to encouraging collegial discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

By the way, thanks for taking the lead in trying to bring peace to the "climate wars". Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I only do it for the puns - the topic area is heating up, a storm of editing ensues, ice cores from the archives indicate long-intractable disputes, the North Encyclopedia oscillation in where the battlesome editors go, azolla editors are drawing down the issues poisoning the current atmosphere (though hopefully they will not be buried for geologic ages under ice and coal). But seriously - thank you, I appreciate the social reinforcement. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Azolla event?!! And I thought I had a hard time keeping the duckweed in check on my aquaria... Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about filing request

Hey 2/0. I was wondering whether there was any reason for one not to file requests for sanctions against users who recently filed requests for sanctions against oneself (sorry, I couldn't really figure out another way to phrase that). I'm mainly curious what WP policy has to say but if there's a common sense reason not to as well I'd love to hear it. E.g., I don't want it to be thought that I'm retaliating, as that isn't/wouldn't be the case. Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as you carefully document your case, specifying the behaviour you find problematic and the steps you or others have taken to discuss the matter, there should be no reason not to. Frivolous countersuits and vexatious litigation are definitely frowned upon, of course, but requesting enforcement is not a free pass for one's own actions. It is standard practice to look at the behaviour of the filing editor, same as at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but, well, complex issues can be difficult to tease out after the fact and may be missed. I was just chatting with Hipocrite here with some thoughts on decreasing the percentage of those reports that are actionable, if you would like to read some of my further thoughts on filing probation requests. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Are steps supposed to be taken to discuss the matter prior? I wasn't contacted by Hip prior to his request... I imagine you must mean discussion of some other kind?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Best practice, in my opinion, includes negotiating in good faith at the talkpage, informally discussing a perceived problem at usertalk, and a more formal specific warning before bringing an enforcement request. Some people dislike it when certain other people post to their talkpage, in which case making such a post is decidedly not part of dispute resolution. The only step that is absolutely necessary, though, is the first one - WP:GS/CC/RE is not a content board. How the case is received depends very much on how much you can demonstrate that the party against whom sanctions are requested should have known better or whatever the particulars of the case. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I'd like to apologize. In the past 4 hours of not wikipedia, I've cooled down substantially. I shouldn't have lashed out at you - it's not your fault. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No harm done - it is incredibly frustrating to try to hold a discussion, carefully iron out all the points of contention, finally get ready to think about making an edit ... and then somebody who in all likelihood did not even see much less read the discussion waltzes in without consideration for all your hard work. There is a similar problem at Naturopathy where every month or two someone swings through with a heavy revision and no discussion except sometimes an edit summary along the lines of what is all this nonsense? this is totally a legitimate well-respected medical speciality / totally bogus and anyone who tries this stuff deserves to stay sick. I do not comment on as many RfCs as I should for similar reason of worrying about due diligence - I do not want to be the guy who comes in at the end of the discussion to say hey, here is this facile solution I bet none of you ever considered - just get along with each other or whatever. One of the reasons why we have open discussions and humans monitoring the probation is precisely so everyone can present mitigating factors like pointing to an open discussion.

Still, thank you for your consideration - I pretty much volunteered for a certain amount of abuse when I took this on, but I must admit to preferring the encomia to the opprobrium. Also, any ideas you may have for systematically encouraging the creation of good articles are especially welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

With all the negativity going on the two of you remind me that there are adults here that can actually behave like adults. Kudos to both of you! This should be an example of how editors should work out things. Have a wonderful night, I hope tomorrow is better for both of you! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1. What Crohnie said. 2. Get a Room. --TS 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Climate change probation

Can you point to any of my contributions to these articles that were potentially disruptive, or were you sending me the notice to remind me that the articles were under probation? I was a frequent editor of climate change topics, and I edit these articles occasionally. However, there currently appears to be a climate shift underway, so I am attempting to update articles, but only when I have the required sources. However, if you can provide me with a brief but deeper background on the dispute and what led up to the probation, please do so. If any of my specific edits concern you, please point to them using diffs. I am not involved in the climate change dispute, and will make my additions as NPOV as possible. However, this does not justify maintaining the status quo on all relavent articles, as this is a broad topic. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The couple of your edits that I checked before leaving the templated notice of probation looked productive to me - thank you. I left the message with the sole intent of letting everyone know that tempers are running a bit hot in the topic area of climate change, with no implication of wrongdoing on your part; my apologies for the redundant notice if you were already aware. I am afraid that the discussion leading to the community decision to impose sanctions is far from brief, but it is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. The short version, as I understand it, is that a combination of interminable intractable disputes (almost daily AN/I threads, four or five open requests for comment, the same editors having much the same arguments about different climate change related articles at all of the content noticeboards, and almost an ArbCom case), years of incessant sock puppetry, and the media attention on the topic from COP15 and Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (or whatever that article is titled this week) all added up to lead the community to try Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Please feel free to copy this to your talkpage if you would like, and any suggestions you may have regarding the wording of the notification template would be welcome. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More on the revert issue

I tried out the new process and there's still a problem. On the edit notice we link to Help:Reverting which contains yet another, even more benign definition of revert, and not Wikipedia:Reverting which contains the new language. I suggest we change the link or (add the plain text). Helping edititors to revert is probably not what was intended in this context :>) JPatterson (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Free reverts for all! Any editor who does not revert an article at least three times in a given day may be blocked from editing!

Er, sorry, I do not know what came over me there. I suggested over at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning that the WP:Edit warring#Reverting might be the best place to point that, but so far the only change I have made is to point to the probation page itself instead of the talk. I would like to wait to see if other editors would like to weigh in on that discussion before changing it - tomorrow should be soon enough. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I added in whole or in part to the introduction of Help:Reverting - thank you for pointing this out. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments invited

I have indef blocked a user that you previously sanctioned. Could you review the block and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block_review_of_User:Jpat34721? Thank you very much. I respect your opinion and neutrality. If you think the block should be refactored, or undone with conditions, or just undone, feel free to take whatever steps you feel are proper. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that was a bit of an amazing furor while I was away. I think the net result is good - I am not ready to give up on the productive potential of this editor despite some of their more ill-advised posts of late. I will try to leave some more detailed advice over there before the block expires. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology (2)

I wanted to apologize for my implication in my article ban appeal that you acted in bad faith. At the time, my confusion regarding what constitutes a revert lead me to feel like I was in a kangaroo court. I now realize there was know way for you to know about my misunderstanding and that you were just doing your job.

Thanks again for your help in getting the revert issues worked out. Regards.

JPatterson (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Echoing the sentiments of a few threads up in another section of the same name, I would need to be quite oblivious not to expect a certain amount of backlash from trying to tamp down the present storm, but I certainly appreciate your consideration. I can see how, if you had not seen me around the rest of the topic area, WMC's post might be misconstrued as calling in a friendly administrator instead of just one who is already up to speed on the probation but had been slacking at the WP:GS/CC/RE board.

I think that you really hurt your public image in terms of being perceived as here to build an encyclopedia with the nature of your appeal (though the appeal itself is, of course, perfectly agreeable - consistency across the project concerning what constitutes editing and adminning norms is important for long-term stability) and CoI thread (discussed elsewhere, so I will confine myself to expressing mild surprise at how long that thread went on, especially after the previous thread citing the same opinion piece was linked).

I recognize that you were engaged at the talkpage, as I expect did BozMo, which was part of the consideration that an article ban for one month would be more productive than a topic ban or a block. Reading the last week and a half of your contributions, you seemed to be arguing tendentiously. Obviously I am not privy to any of your actual motivations, and there a few significant instances outside the pattern, but taken as a whole that is how it appeared to someone outside of the discussions. I cannot speak for the other participants in the enforcement discussion, but personally I barely considered the issue of 1RR - strict enforcement of a technical violation in the pursuit of a stable compromise is not always the best approach. For example, WMC slipped up himself yesterday (see here); I probably would have blocked him briefly if I had been active at the time, but self-reverting is a much better solution in terms of creating quality articles and promoting a collaborative atmosphere. I will also state that I consider the unblocking bar to be pretty low in such cases; it is an entirely different matter, of course, if future edits do not show an earnest attempt at greater care.

Your attention in harmonizing the policy, guideline, and essay pages is particularly welcome. I am not sure that I had more than glanced at any of those pages except WP:Edit warring (which reminds me - I hope WP:AN3 is not getting backed up while I am distracted over here). The term revert is being used in its usual sense, but it is still something of a term of art and should be well-defined.

Topic areas subject to significant debate outside of Wikipedia are something of a conundrum for the continued growth of the encyclopedia. They are among the most likely to attract new editors to leap the first-contribution hurdle (the other being popular television shows and other media; somewhat tongue-in-cheek, WP:OVERLINKING should not apply to WP:FICT and WP:MOSFICT), but among the worst places to start in terms of acclimating to encyclopedic writing and the steepness of the expected learning curve. The rampant sock puppetry in such areas (read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles if you have time on your hands and would like another example) does nothing to foster the collaborative and welcoming environment we would prefer to prevail everywhere and especially to present to new contributors. I genuinely hope that you expand your editing interests, as indeed you seem to be doing, so that you can experience the more positive aspects of encyclopedia-building. The joy of reading a well-written comprehensive article and being able to say I had a hand in that is what keeps me, and I suspect most of us, coming back year after year. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. Lots of good advice. I really do want to be constructive player here. I take from above that the reason my sanction was so much more severe than the others that day was because of the additional charge of tendentious editing. If by that you mean article editing (as opposed to the talk page), my error, I think, was in applying WP:BRD in a context where evidently it is inappropriate. Perhaps it would be wise to place some discussion of WP:Bold and WP:BRD in the context of an article on probation on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation.

I don't have a good feel yet for the role admins play in refereeing disputes as part of the probation process but you wrote somewhere that one of your roles is to "restore a normal editing environment" in the climate change space. In that regard, I wonder if I might get your feedback on this exchange which led up to the incident in question. Assuming you agree with my theme which runs throughout my Talk:Climategate interactions, that we're here to chronicle the controversy, not pass judgment on which side is right (and if you don't please set me straight), I'd like some feedback on the process to follow in the future when faced with this kind of intransigence. I also have some thoughts on article probation in general here that you might be interested in. Thanks again for taking the time with this. JPatterson (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, although arguably the block on Dcowboys3109 (talk · contribs) was the more severe sanction, as your contributions outside of that article are still welcome (and good from my brief glance at them the other day - rock on), while theirs got a big ol' no thanks for a day (the standard block length for minor edit warring blocks). Editing confined to the talkpage can still be disruptive, and is generally taken into consideration in topic ban discussions.

On most articles, BRD is a good compromise for promoting article development without getting bogged down at the talkpage while still moving to the discussion phase before the battle lines are drawn. Most people, I think, have far more nuanced positions and well developed thoughts on the issues they edit than might be apparent from their edits in hotly contested areas. On less well trafficked talkpages, it is not uncommon to find comments from months or years ago to which nobody has felt the need to respond - clearly a case where just making the edit and waiting for any comments is the best course for building the article. On heavily monitored articles like many of those within the scope of the probation, however, it can be that there is enough information already on the talkpage to understand who and why will object to a particular edit. It is better in that case just to skip the initial edit in favor of hammering out a consensus that everyone will defend first. The make a change and then edit war over it until somebody gets sanctioned method still seems popular, though, perhaps for its potential to silence the opposition. Bad faith proposals and tactical use of sanctions would, of course, themselves be in gross violation of policy, which is part of why the entire situation is considered at those cases. It is difficult to divine the motive behind a bold edit, but the discussion-first model has the advantage that editing against a clear and obvious consensus is disruptive. The basic advice if you feel a discussion is not proceeding productively is to wait for or seek outside input. Perhaps input from a new perspective will induce one or another participants to change their mind. I cannot overemphasize the importance of clear, concise writing - not only will it minimize misunderstandings, but it also is much more encouraging to potential outside input than ream after ream of discursive or circular discussion and general incivility.

Personally, I consider that my time will yield better results for less effort whenever articles get past a few dozen edits per day (try getting a word in edgewise at 2010 Haiti earthquake). Worse, the rapidly evolving nature of the coverage makes any consensus tenuous and subject to tomorrow's news cycle. All of this, though, is within the normal editing environment. The ultimate goal of the WP:GS/CC/RE page is to make the sanctions redundant for reason of the topic area being full of editors discussing, perhaps vehemently but certainly politely and in good faith, all points of disagreement until everyone is equally (un)happy with the articles. It is when the battle lines are drawn, the clarion horn sounded, the less-impassioned and less-disputatious editors driven off, the WP:POINTs sharpened, and "winning" is measured in steepness of MYPOV instead of NPOV that the community needs to step in with a gentle but firm reminder that this is an encyclopedia. meta:How to win an argument and User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war should be required reading for anyone in my position.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that the raison d'être for articles here is to reflect the reliable sources according to their prominence. The disagreement comes once specifics are in play. Should the focus of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident be the fact that data traveled from their servers to one in Russia in contravention of established procedure? Or should it be what the emails etc. contained? Or is reporting what has been said about the coverage of the incident most encyclopedic? Then people who agree on the grand focus contend with each other that this source or that is unusably biased and involved in one side or another of the controversy, or a particular point is unweightably minor or should be covered only alongside some other point or must (not) be included in the lead.

The evenly dispersed nature of content control is a perennial conundrum. Ling.Nut and Cla68 were discussing some sort of content court of appeals the other day, and might have some more thoughts on that part of your retrospective. That sort of discussion usually goes to the village pump, though understanding what has been said before on similar matters is generally advised.

As an admittedly pedantic aside, I think you mean wikt:aspersion rather than wikt:dispersion, and wikt:exacerbate rather than wikt:exasperate. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a lot to digest. I think the nutshell of the advice I was seeking is contained in "The basic advice if you feel a discussion is not proceeding productively is to wait for or seek outside input." I'm not sure of how one goes about doing that (I guess that was my question) but I'm not sure that in the case of the Climategate article more input is the thing that's needed :>) I hope you are right about universal acceptance of the raison d'être you spoke of above but when a Mom-and-Apple-pie appeal like this one gets the response it did, it does shake one's confidence in that view.

"Should the focus of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident be the fact that data traveled from their servers to one in Russia in contravention of established procedure? Or should it be what the emails etc. contained?"

I guess my answer is yes to both. I thought the idea was to chronicle the controversy. People seem to be trying to apply the same WP:Weight arguments that would be perfectly appropriate in article about the science of AGW into an article that is only peripherally related to the science. Twenty years from now, the scientific issues will be settled. Regardless of who turns out to be right, the hacking incident will remain an interesting historical footnote which perhaps will have had a profound effect on politics and policy. I want WP to accurately reflect the history ans it's the history we miss if we pretend that the only one qualified to speak to the issues raised are those sympathetic to the implicated scientists or worse, the blatant POV-pushing view that was expressed in the exchange I pointed you to, that the role of an editor, and by implication, WP, is to prevent skeptics from turning a molehill into a mountain. The outside world will decide if its a mountain or a molehill, our job it seems to me, is to frame the debate and chronicle its effects with encyclopedic tone instead of the current disjoint cascade of he saids/she saids that too often characterizes WP articles on current events. JPatterson (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant the comments above as a generic commentary on some of the hurdles that have to be gotten over when writing about current events and not to veer into prohibited territory. But then again, you brought it up ;>) JPatterson (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose I was talking about the cesspit that shall not be named a bit, there. On the other hand, I am relatively confident that you have not been using this discussion in a subtle bid to try to influence me to edit that article on your behalf. Call it a hunch.

Outside input can come from editors involved at the article but not in a particular discussion. Too often I see a back-and-forth from two editors run in the span of a scant few hours the gamut from a polite request for clarification to little better than a flameware. This quick progression limits the chances for other editors to weigh in before intransigence sets in. Taking the time to consider each post, perhaps waiting a few hours or a day if tempers are running hot, increases the signal-to-noise ratio of a talkpage.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has some good general advice, as well as laying out where and how to attract fresh input. Every step requires time and patience, though, both of which tend to be in short supply on hotly contested evolving topics. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Picky point

Re Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Jpat34721 On the one hand, I suspect that Jpat34721 will be pleasantly surprised to see his banning period is over, and perhaps he'll marvel at how fast time flies. On the other hand, you may have meant 2010-02-13. Frankly, I haven't finished my 2009 MBO's, so I wish it were still 2009, but I don't always get my wishes.--SPhilbrickT 00:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

/embarrassed Ah well, it is good to know that somebody reads those things - thanks. At least at less than two weeks into the new year I can claim habit instead of plain ol' not knowing what year it is. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, because to be quite honest, half the reason I posted was to show that someone is actually reading.--SPhilbrickT 18:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A question on my article ban

Am I allowed to engage with users on their TPs regarding the article in question? Thanks,JPatterson (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The idea of a partial rather than site ban is that a user can probably be a productive contributor to the encyclopedia, but needs to disengage from a particular area. Using various usertalk pages as a proxy for Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident would not serve that purpose. If a user approaches you with a specific limited question, it is probably okay (though less than ideal) to render an answer including reference to this temporary ban; users who repeatedly make such approaches after being informed of the ban might be engaged in baiting, attempting to game the system, or otherwise editing disruptively. Thank you for seeking clarification. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks JPatterson (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight's block statement

In your block statement there is a mistake that you should correct. Diff #3 needlessly inflaming an already passionate discussion doesn't go to an edit made by GoRight , but to an edit made by some other guy. I looked at the history and GoRight has never edited that article nor its talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

From 2006, probably indicating I dropped a digit in the copy/paste. Thank you for noticing, I will dig out the correct one soonest. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight would like you to know

GoRight asked if someone would alert you to this conversation. I told him I would. It's all yours, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have been following along at home while trying not to add to the noise of that discussion, but I think something more from me is required there in the near future. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

procedural Question

Hi 2/0, I'd like to get out of jail re the CRU hacking incident article. Could you point me to the proper forum for initiating a review? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would, I believe, be the best venue. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Remedy has a link for a handy template that may help in formatting the discussion. I would advise waiting a few days before opening the discussion so you can point to a solid week of uninterrupted productive contributions to other areas. This is by no means required, it is merely my personal opinion that that will bolster your case. I would also advise pointing to the original WP:GS/CC/RE discussion, the first ban review, and any related discussions - somebody will bring them up fairly soon anyway, and doing it yourself gives you the best chance to state your views on the concerns raised therein. Our discussion on the precise meaning of the term revert is also a mitigating factor, though somewhat tangential to the final decision. I am honestly not sure right now what would be best for the project, but good luck anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking it had been a week but I miscounted. I'll take your advice. I'm busy with other stuff anyway. JPatterson (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it violate policy if we handled this quietly here? I am anxious to get all this behind me but it seems the last thing the community needs right now is another forum to play out the us v. them meme. I have absolutely no desire be a foil in that fight (a pox on both houses as far as I'm concerned). This experience has given me a better idea of what's expected in this new environment and I am confident I can contribute in a constructive manner. I propose the rest of my "sentence" be converted to probation, revocable by you at your whim. JPatterson (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think so, but I have asked BozMo for advice. Moni3 wrote up some advice for editing the article covering the recent earthquake in Haiti (linked from the first Signpost article at the top of this page), some of which also applies to other emerging stories, paralleling some of your own concerns. I definitely am interested in not stirring up more drama, but I also want to be careful not to ignore the original community discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In mulling this over, I would ask both of you to consider, given the reception I received here upon my return to editing after a three year break and the battle mentality on display by both sides (diffs upon request), that my conclusion that this was the behavioral norm was reasonable. I realize now that I entered the fray at an inopportune time, shortly after this probation thing was put into place and admins were trying to restore order. It was not my intention to exacerbated the situation, nor is it my intention to jump back into the fire. My interest remains in creating an article that reflects the controversy accurately, but I intend to concentrate on the social, political and policy impacts that have occurred, subject matter that should not be nearly as controversial. JPatterson (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere or should I just go ahead with a community appeal? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me ponder this a bit more, please, as it is a bit of a thorny issue. You should have a right to a timely reply, though, so please feel free to make your appeal to AN/I if I have not responded in the next 12 hours or so. For the direction my thoughts are currently trending - how would you feel about being unbanned from the talkpage only? - 2/0 (cont.) 09:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning re your half-a-loaf offer or how it would work. I'm interested in improving the article, would I be allowed to suggest content on the TP that then would have to be implemented by someone else or not allowed to make content suggestions at all? JPatterson (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You know better than anyone the mitigating circumstances surrounding all this, knowledge you didn't have at the time you passed judgment. If you can honestly say you'd impose the same sanction today knowing all that, fine, I'll just have to scratch my head and move on. If not, you can fix it. Since I understand certainty is impossible, I repeat my offer that you can reimpose the original sanction at your whim and without a whimper from me. JPatterson (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete and unfettered ability to edit anything and everything except Climatic Research Unit hacking incident itself - what say you? The expiry for that would remain at the day before the anniversary of the Saint Valentine's Day massacre. The edits to the article should already have a strong consensus before anyone edits the article, so this restriction should not be particularly onerous. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd take it with the understanding that charges of tag teaming or meat puppetry would be inappropriate in this context as I would only be able to affect content via proxy. JPatterson (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, that is not really how it works - you would be a voice at the talkpage, same as any other, free to participate in collaborative discussion. If there is a consensus at a particular discussion, it should not matter who makes the actual edit and the question of proxying for a banned user should not even arise. If there is not a consensus, then nobody should be editing the article anyway, and again the question should not arise. Please, please do not think of this as going back into battle. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand my remarks. If I intended to go "back into battle", my proposal to give you a hair trigger would have been pretty stupid, no? I intend to avoid antagonism like the plague. My concern is about a few editors there who seem more than ready to pounce on anyone they perceive as standing in the way of Truth, and who have shown themselves more than willing to use the clubs probation has put in their hands. I can imagine a scenario where content I suggest gets inserted by someone else after consensus, and then a RfE gets filed on the technicality that I am acting through a proxy. Just because I'm parnoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get me :>) JPatterson (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes much more sense and is much better in accord with the impression I had formed of you from these discussions - thank you. The hair trigger pretty much has to be there in any case, but I do appreciate your transparency, as well as your stated intentions. I am going to go ahead and lift the talkpage ban, then - good luck. I left a note on your talkpage to that effect. You are free to do whatsoever you please with it, but it might be nice to have some sort of pointer to the unban for the next little while, as I do not know how many of the active editors there are aware of this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration here. I am happy we could find accommodation. Please feel free to offer constructive criticism as I try and tip toe through the mine field. Cheers. JPatterson (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Words of wisdom from the King

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
~ Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have a dream, that someday all editors will be judged by the character of their content and not the color of their state. (or something like that). JPatterson (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Javascript tool to help with external-link review

Hello - if you're like me, you've often been frustrated that Special:LinkSearch doesn't have a facility to restrict an external-link search to a specific namespace. (After all, we usually care most about links in articlespace). Like any self-respecting wannabe amateur, I've hacked together some Javascript to address this lack. I thought you might be interested. If so, you can go to User:2over0/monobook.js and add the line importScript('User:MastCell/el-namespace.js'); there.

After you refresh your browser cache, the next time you go to Special:LinkSearch you should see a drop-down menu where you can specify the namespace you want to search. Technically, the script intercepts your click on the "Search" button and sends an AJAX query to the MediaWiki API. I've set it up to display the results in the familiar format. There are still a few kinks to be ironed out, but it works well for me so far. Anyhow, if you're interested, give it a shot and let me know how it works for you. MastCell ^Talk 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes - thank you! - 2/0 (cont.) 06:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any problems with it. It needs a little cleanup, but I think the only major issue remaining is that the internal wikilinks in the results table don't work right if you're on the secure site.

My next project is more ambitious. Have you ever noticed that there are a few people who add very little substance to discussions, but who are irritatingly difficult to ignore? The idea would be that you have an "ignore list" in some central location. Each time you load a discussion page, a piece of Javascript runs the content and collapses, shrinks, disemvowels, or completely removes any comments from the offending editors, thus enabling you to focus on content issues without irritating distractions. Unfortunately, it's hard (for me, at least) to come up with a functional, elegant, efficient algorithm to remove comments from a specific editor that will robustly handle edge cases (poor indentation, breaking up others' comments, etc). But a person can dream... MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaving the issue of 'is it a good idea' aside, one way could be to leverage the ability to see exactly what edits the user has done on the page in question. Unomi (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's like the atomic bomb - let's develop the technology first, then worry about whether it's a good idea. :P I can pull edits in diff form, but that doesn't work so well since later edits can overwrite or alter them, in part or full. I haven't looked in detail - are there existing tools that can reliably identify a specific editor's contributions to a given revision of a page? MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight requests a response

Please be aware that GoRight wishes to draw your attention to his responses at [6] and he awaits your reply. Thanks. --ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC) (On behalf of GoRight.)

Hi, can you help me simply see (or point) to what your would like to GoRight to agree to, so as to remove his block and proceed? I may be able to help you obtain a resolution. My request was prompted by his [7] here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not offered unblock terms to GoRight at present, but I am considering the several they have proposed. Civility parole, partial or total restriction from editing climate change articles and talkpages, dispute resolution limitations, and finding a mentor are churning to the top of my mind at the moment. I am not aware of civility parole ever working or failing to incite drama, no matter the intentions of all involved. I am uncomfortable with any dispute resolution restriction that could be used to stifle legitimate review. Mentorship is generally more useful to newer editors learning the ropes and wanting to integrate better with the community; it also must be completely voluntary on all sides. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As I have discussed with GoRight, I feel the issues that have held him up are really about his intentions and possibly misunderstandings about them. I hope you agree he has talents that could be put to better application, if they were properly focused with a sense of purpose as direction and the feeling that wikipedia life can be meaningful beyond disputes. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling fix

Thanks for the spelling fix ... apologize I didn't catch it. I've had my deal of typo / transpose trouble today. Likely means I should be doing something else more important. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it is simple enough and I was entertained by the mental image of a talkpage with sprawling estates. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That must be it! ... I just returned from touring the 67 acre manors at Cà_d'Zan and Florida real estate shopping. Be thankful I didn't slip and include the circus images. Cà_d'Zan is impressive. (smile) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful country down there; I was not familiar with Cà d'Zan, but reading and looking at that article it certainly seems I should be. Be sure to check out the Florida Aquarium north a bit in Tampa next time you are in the area - it is worth spending the day. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do, the best fish sights this time were at Epcot Center and flying a Waco bi-plane over the reef near Marathon in the Keys. Amazing ecosystems. Just learned the Gulf may have been created by an astroid. I bring this up to disclose my belief that an asteroid impact is a greater threat to climate change than human induced causes. Also note, John Ringling suffered nearly a complete great economic depression loss, after building that wonderful estate.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wassup here?

I've been tweaking and rejigging discussions for quite a while on Wikipedia, and now I'm encountering quite a lot of flack because my attempts to stop discussions becoming straw polls are described as disruptive. Obviously I'm going to stop because it's annoying some people. But a thoughtful comment or two would be appreciated. The comments on my user talk page in the section "WT:PROD" and the one that follows ("Re: Why I removed the bolding") are from completely different people with no conceivable connection so obviously I'm doing something seriously controversial. My aim is to stop discussions turning into ugly, divisive, up-down votes, but obviously there has to be a better way than this. --TS 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Growing pains? As the Wikipedia editor base expands, the proportion who have been around for as long as you have gradually diminishes and the community norms get an Eternal September effect. The pace at which discussions become unmanageably long remains static even as the number of voices to be heard grows. Personally, I think it can be useful to make sure everyone is on the same page after a long and complicated discussion, but moving to it too soon can short circuit the consensus-building process. On the other hand, people dislike having their posts modified or moved, so treating the !vote tally as a summary for tl;dr and responding solely to the points raised may be the best option. It might be helpful to encourage through example the convention of putting the rationale first, with the one word summary bolded in the last sentence or so for ease of parsing.

I saw an interesting graphic a few years back attempting to plot the positions of the US public and the US House of Representatives on a one-dimensional left-right spectrum. The plot for the public looked pretty much like two broad Gaussians with maybe a 10—15 point std, peaked at about ±3 points on a scale of 100 (presumably "0" was defined by averaging the data points). The plot for the House showed a deep dip right just most of the citizens were in basic agreement, with the peaks at around ±10, well outside those of the general public, and a much stronger showing percentage wise towards the extreme ends of the spectrum. Binning continuous data too coarsely is bad for NPOV.

As for actually useful advice, well, leading by example is pretty much the end of it - respond to the points raised, incite discussion, and ignore the head-counting. You are pretty good about not just falling in with one of two pre-defined positions and refusing to change your mind, but one thing I would really like to see more of in the climate change disputes is people taking their own side to task when they screw up. Defending a person or position based on anything besides the strength of arguments does the encyclopedia no favors, but also does the proposer no favors by making it socially more difficult for them to state a change of opinion. Ah, well, maybe next week. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, a thoughtful response! Thanks. There's a lot of good thinking there and I'll try to incorporate it into my activities. --TS 19:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight's block

2/0, please unblock GoRight.

At the beginning of the year, whilst most of us were away from our computers, a small group of climate change editors set up a new forum and called it, "Climate Change Probation." The idea was proposed by a boy who appears to be in his early 20s, probably too young to have ever even had a job.

Whilst the intentions of some involved may have been good, there was no authorisation from the Wikipedia Foundation or ArbComm to do this, and since many of the editors involved in setting it up are POV pushers from the warmist camp, it is natural that skeptics are offended and will react to it.

(As for what would work, as far as fixing the corruption & poisonous atmosphere within the climate change pages, it would be mediation by parties known by both sides, advocates & skeptics, to be neutral. Neutral here would mean, an editor who has never shown any interest in the climate change debate, but he would likely suppose that the IPCC is probably right. Both sides would agree to the mediation. This much is common sense, but unfortunately, it seems, the warmist camp, with too much admin power taken too liberally, couldn't help themselves and have set themselves up as mediators in their own dispute with the skeptics. Honestly, this must look far, far worse to the general public than anything found in the Climategate letters. Whereas the IPCC is merely waning in credibility as a result of a number of scandals, Wikipedia appears corrupt to the core.)

I don't, personally, want anything to do with the climate change probation, given its illegitimacy, so I have largely just ignored it. Others have reacted differently, and that is understandable.

However, GoRight immediately objected, and, sure, he has reacted badly since. So it looks like he was provoked by the community with climate change probation in the first instance, and now is now banned less than 20 days later by the very same climate change probation, after reacting. This is, of course, what everyone expected probation to turn out to be: a weapon to be used against skeptics, rather than the real problem editors, POV pushers from either side.

I believe that you are, yourself, sincere in trying to fix the climate change pages, and so I appeal to you here: this block needs to be lifted. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that your depiction of the climate change probation, and particularly how it came about ("a boy ... probably too young to have ever even had a job" - WTF?), is complete fantasy. If you want anyone to take you seriously I think you have to do a lot better than that. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll note as an aside that this user's recent comments on GoRight's block have not exactly been a model of restraint: [8]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Although to be fair, they deleted that comment between when I saw it and when I might decide the best way forward from there. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but it seems pretty clear where this user is coming from. I suspect that this will be a self-correcting problem though - if he acts as he says he's doing (i.e. ignoring the probation) then he will end up getting blocked or topic-banned before too long. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you asked GoRight a question related to an exchange between him and me in which he parroted my words back at me [9]. I don't think that was really much of a problem. I just calmly asked him what he meant and then fixed my wording to remove the possibility of my words being misinterpreted. As that was a discussion on his talk page and if anything he would have felt under pressure and not I, I think it was well within acceptable parameters. I'm grown-up enough not to hold someone in high dudgeon for being a bit sarcastic. Not an ideal response to an editor coming to you with serious concerns, but then again not problematic in itself. The issue on which I wanted to express my concern was more important, both then and now. This was GoRight's creation of a pretty big essay on the Pcarbonn ban into the page at WP:AN. I don't think GoRight is intrinsically difficult to interact with, as long as you accept that he tends to adopt a fairly antagonistic style. As you're no doubt aware he isn't alone in these problem areas in adopting a battleground mentality. --TS 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@AH: I am aware of the problems surrounding the genesis and implementation of the climate change probation, but I think it has rather more support from the community and ArbCom than you indicate - [10], [11]. Disclosure: while I do not think I was the first to suggest such a solution, I argued for something similar to this probation in the first of the preceding links. That said, I did not invoke the discretionary sanctions in my blocking rationale. I am currently working with a few other editors to hash out a set of conditions under which they may continue to contribute to the project. Creative ideas that do not create an undue burden of enforcement are particularly welcome. @TS: Thank you for your perspective on your discussion, I will take it into consideration. I had read that exchange as considerably less productive than you describe. I think one of the problems with the battleground mentality is the stick (banning/blocking) is much more visible than the carrot (satisfaction at having contributed to the best encyclopedia possible). When editors start antagonizing each other, it seems that most people either get in on it or leave - what we need is some way to break the cycle, and catch and defuse it wherever it starts. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if my intervention at that point was soured by the misconceived enforcement request I had filed against GoRight the previous week. In retrospect it might have looked as if I was just looking for an excuse to have him censured. Since then as you know GoRight has increasingly perceived me as an enemy. My position (as outlined elsewhere) is that I want him editing articles and commenting on talk pages, but I want him to be talking about the topic, not the people. If he wants to talk about the people he should follow dispute resolution. I think we're all on the same page with this. We just need to build trust in the possibility of a solution. --TS 23:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

2over0, you said it all "the stick (banning/blocking) is much more visible than the carrot (satisfaction at having contributed to the best encyclopedia possible) to make the carrot visible, I been looking into gestalt coaching principles. When unknown editors are viewed as potential assets to be grown rather than whipped into compliance, then Wikipedia's potential will grow too. Each crack of the whip, takes a toll on the whole community and should be conducted prudently, an effectively. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0, if GoRight has been blocked for having a battleground mentality, you need to check out my talk page. This is what I put up with daily due to the perception that I am a climate change skeptic. Right now, three editors are harassing me for the remark I made about Ryan's photo. William M. Connolley is demanding an apology for "grotesque" incivility whilst in the same breath telling me that my conversation there with Ryan is "pathetic". I wonder, what on earth has this got to do with William anyway? Then Stephan Schulz came along and added some pointy sarcasm, and finally, Tony Sidaway warned me that I am not allowed to make personal remarks on my own talk page. (Um, what?) Are they going to be warned in turn? I don't think so. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As indicated by the level of activity at this page lately, I am currently somewhat overextended. This is precisely the sort of dispute that takes the longest to review, but failing to investigate the relevant background would be a disservice to all involved and an abuse of my position as an uninvolved administrator. Please escalate the issue to the appropriate noticeboard (probably WQA, from your description) if the matter cannot be resolved amicably at usertalk. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest unblock request

I am troubled that the substance of GoRight's latest unblock request does not comfortably line up with his recent conduct. He appears to be continuing to do his very best to encourage, direct, and inflame disputes despite being confined to his talk page. Ten hours before the unblock request ([12]) GoRight was endorsing the misuse of the climate change probation enforcement talk page by ZuluPapa5 as a platform for harrassment and namecalling directed at his perennial target, William M. Connolley: [13]. He is apparently watching quite closely, as he was the first to notice ZP5's violation of 3RR on that page and encouraged him to self-revert to keep his edit warring within the letter of 3RR: [14].

Encouraging vexatious misuse of dispute resolution pages and gaming of 3RR limits to enable edit warring is not, to my mind, "mak[ing] use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner", nor does it seem to "place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes. While a sufficiently twisted interpretation could perhaps let his 'guidance' of ZP5 fit around (behind, under) those terms, I would much prefer to see him understanding and abiding by the spirit of his propsed commitments before he is unblocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It was "misuse of the climate change probation enforcement talk page" by WMC [15] which seems to have caused a stir for GoRight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

TOAT, if there was a war by me there as you describe, who was on the other side? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not questioning the sincerity of GoRight's pledge, it would seem far more useful and constructive (to me, at least) to have concrete, specific criteria going forward. Pleasant-sounding but vague and totally subjective pledges to be judicious don't tend to work out very well in these sorts of situations. That's just my 2 cents; the decision isn't up to me. MastCell ^Talk 01:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Making it simple

Seems like GoRight would like to make this simple and move on: User talk:GoRight#What are the terms under which you will allow me to continue editing?. Let me know how I can help? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

2overO, regarding a simple solution, this seems relevant to me, Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_and_sanctions_for_disruption regards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Framework for unblocking GoRight

I would recommend strong, specific conditions for any unblock of GoRight; the framework that you've outlined forms a reasonable basis. While I am sure that GoRight offers his pledges in all earnestness, the fact remains that he has a demonstrated history of falling short of such commitments in the past. The last two (un)blocks in his block log are instructive:

• Unblocked 3 December 2009 (after disruptive editing of Scientific opinion on climate change) with a commitment to pay special attention to WP:CIVIL and avoid further edit warring on the page [16]. Unblocking admin's log entry: "per request and good-faith agreement on user talk page".
• Unblocked 6 January 2010 (after a general, broad pattern of disruptive editing) with the affirmation "OK, upon further reflection and off-wiki advice, message received. I hereby agree to be more constructive." [17]. Unblocking admin's log entry: "per promises to improve behaviour".

Regrettably, since you've had to reblock GoRight for essentially the same problems, it would strike me as counterproductive to unblock without clear boundaries to guide his future contributions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jpat34721

Are you reviewing his reentry into editing the one talk page he was banned from? Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The ban was lifted. See User talk:Jpat34721#Unbanned from Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I am wondering if 2/0 is watching his problematic return to the talk page. If I though he was still banned, I'd just ask a bunch of people to block him. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean now. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, but that was next on my due diligence list. I have high hopes for this one, but I am a cautious optimist. Without having reviewed Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident as of this post, the sorts of clashes my crystal ball predicted should be amenable to the polite collaborative discussion at usertalk method. Hopefully. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Go crazy. I'm inches away from filing another enforcement request. I suggest you inform your charge that copy-pasting a huge list of references without any proposal to use those references or any proposal to make any change to the article is disruptive. I suggest you inform your charge that suggesting the same shit he suggested over and over before he was banned, using the same reasoning over and over from before he was banned that has the same chance of garnering acceptance as before he was banned will lead to him being banned again. It's like he's fundamentally incapable of even considering middle ground. It's tremendously frusterating to finally - FINALLY start watching some headway being made on that article just to find that someone is unbanned just to start being the boulder in the middle of the road. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left a polite message on Jpat's talk page suggesting that he might want to reconsider his approach. I agree that it seems unconstructive, at the very least, but let's see if he's a one-track-mind editor as well as a single purpose account. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what's the problem? He listed sources which indicate that the term "Climategate" has extensive real world sources. Why is this considered a problem? Really, this badgering of editors who don't share the pre-ordained POV has got to stop. 2/0, I certainly hope you treat this frivolous request as you have for such requests from the other side, and topic-ban these 2 editors as you did JPat. ATren (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I article-banned Jpat34721 following discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1#Jpat34721. It will probably be tomorrow before I can catch up on sorting through Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, and related issues. If in the meantime you would like to make a specific enforcement request, please use Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0, if you don't mind, would you please elaborate on your reasons for article-banning JPat? I've looked at that section, and there are only two diffs provided as evidence. Neither is abusive. At worst, this was a 2RR, nothing more, yet you article-banned him for a month. Furthermore, that article ban was used as justification for a block when JPat raised a legitimate COI/N request. I realize your ban has been lifted, but as we can see here, others are still using it as justification to take further action against JPat.

So based on my view of the evidence, I believe your article ban was incorrect. If there's evidence I missed, I'll gladly retract that, but if there was no other evidence, then I think you should retract your action, and admit it was a mistake (or, at least, an overreaction). This would serve to "clear JPat's name" so that editors don't try to use this (IMO) ill-advised ban against him, as they have done here.

Note: I do not assume bad faith in any of this. I realize how difficult this task is, and how easy it is to misjudge a situation. But I do believe a mistake was made, and if so, it should be corrected. Thanks. ATren (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ATren, I appreciate your comments I really do but I don't think it's productive to rake those coals again. 2over0 and I have reached accommodation after much discussion and I really would hate to see him have to expend more time on this. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand and respect that, JPat, but I'd still appreciate a response from 2/0, perhaps by email to avoid further on-wiki drama. This ban seemed way over the line, and continues to create drama (see above). I think it's important to get to the bottom of it. 2/0, feel free to contact me via email. ATren (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the original ban appeal, Jpat's contributions especially to Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident had come to my attention when I was looking for hotspots in the probation area. The diffs I reviewed included all contributions in the 1—2 weeks preceding the enforcement request. The pattern of diffs is not recorded, but there is extensive discussion here leading up to the partial unban. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rememebr what I complained about last time? The giveaninchtakeamile problem? It's recurred. How would you go about dealing with that? Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my contribution to Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident thus far. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. I would appreciate feedback on what is problematic with any of these. I don't see anything the least bit antagonistic in my remarks. These responses ([27] [28][29][30]) are in my opinion entirely unwarranted and unnecessarily inflammatory. JPatterson (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely do not know how to resolve the general issue here. Pointing to consensus at earlier talk threads works ordinarily, but the continuing unfolding of that topic and the recklessly disputatious atmosphere of discussion there both contribute to making any consensus particularly tenuous and open to reasonable or disingenuous debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

question

With regards to the probation, might i ask if a deletion is the same as a revert if it is the same text being removed? [31] or is this a loophole in the probation? --mark nutley (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a normal edit, and was mentioned on the talkpage. Thank you for bringing this up. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletions of text can be difficult. In a sense, *any* deletion of text is automatically a revert, because someone added it sometime. But that would be overly strict. Within the context of 3RR, which this largely follows, a deletion would not be considered a revert if the text removed was sufficiently old - sufficient would vary by article; but if its addition was severeal hundred edits down the history list, or added several years ago, and was not obviously part of the existing revert war, it probably doesn't count as a revert William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to reply.

Hi, I commented here regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CRU Hack Rename Fracas

This Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Article_move completely broke down into name calling and reprehensible behavior by a lot of editors that should know better. I'm not sure how to request an enforcement action on it, but it got really ugly. Ignignot (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dam and blast, I thought there was move protection on that article. Ah well, SarekOfVulcan has corrected my oversight. I will take a look in a bit, thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you've got a spare moment, Wikipedia_talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for_enforcement#Rules of_the_game needs an answer. PS: aren't you pleased? I'm nothing to do with the CRUhi rename disaster area :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes I am. I am closing some of the open reports at the RE page even now - look for it soon. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC refactoring case

Well nobody has screamed the house down over this proposal...yet! I don't know, maybe everybody agrees with you--or maybe they're all too busy playing the finger-pointing game on other parts of the enforcement page. I must say I find this recent slew of filings disappointing. There are some valid issues there but I get the impression it's turned into a game to see who can get sanctions passed against "the other lot." -TS 23:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly I must agree; I do not feel surprise that people are trying to use the RE page to call down the thunder on people with whom they tend to disagree, but there is some degree of disappointment. Still, I pledged in my RfA that I would strive to ensure that my use of the tools would not be the means by which one PoV-warrior wins over another, and I intend to live up to that. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0 I believe closing down this [32] was a mistake, do you not think another admin should have looked it over. Is it possible that you are being overrun with all the CC related issues and have not had enough time to look through it all? --mark nutley (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Color me unsurprised. No complaint against WMC is ever acted upon. He's persistently rude to those he disagrees with, and nothing is ever done. Your close is just another step along that road. UnitAnode 00:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No action means no warning or no, I don't want the abuse my way. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request you cease action on GW probation

2/0, I think you should withdraw from action on the GW probation pages. The JPat action raised concerns for me, and your closing of the WMC request with no action is evidence that you are unable to act with neutrality here. JPat's violations were far less disruptive or abusive than WMC's (or Hipicrite's, for that matter) yet you imposed stronger sanctions on JPat than either WMC or Hipocrite. In addition, even when confronted with your error on JPat, you were very slow in reacting. Then there's the GoRight indef block -- while I do believe there are issues with GoRight, your handling of that has been quite suspect and probably over-reaching given the temperature of these pages.

All of these factors, when taken together, indicate that your attempts at even-handedness have failed, and I am requesting that you withdraw. ATren (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)