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

Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZP5* Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NPA thing

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

Fell Gleaming 2 and common sense

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

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

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

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

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

Continued from above because of browser limitations.

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

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

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

Success story

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

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

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

FellGleaming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over-reliance on blogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog comments?

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

Lar

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