User talk:ATren

archive historical revision archive, 1/25/2009 archive, 7/21/2010

I am no longer involved in climate change articles. After 3 years battling the house POV, I finally remembered that I don't care about any of this. :-) ATren (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[1] How am i to stop him harrasing me? I refuse to interact with him, i have told him repeatedly not to post on my talk page. I was under the impression that if you asked someone to not post on your talk then they were not meant to? mark nutley (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't respond to his comments, at all. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won`t, but i also do not want him hassling me on my talk page mark nutley (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove his comments with an edit comment politely requesting he not post there, and then ignore him. Like kids taunting on a playground, the more you respond to it, the more they do it, so don't do it. If you firmly stand your ground, eventually he'll be forced to stop or be vulnerable to a charge of harassment. ATren (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eventually he'll be forced to stop :) yes, of course he will. I`ll just remove them, he does not deserve the courtesy of an edit summary. Your making the right choice by quitting. Mine will be made for me soon enough. Thanks mate. mark nutley (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way Mark: responding to the taunting cannot make the situation better and probably will make it worse. Furthermore, (to continue the playground analogy) when the taunting is being done by the teacher's pet, crying to the teacher will not help, and will probably make it worse. The only choice you have is to ignore it and hope the principal eventually spots the problem. And as it happens, right now the principal is crouched behind a bush, watching everything. So you really really don't want to respond now. (I trust you will be able to deduce who the taunter, the teacher(s) and the principal are in this extended analogy ;-)).

Having said all that, you do need to get out of this mess. I committed to leaving this topic area for good, and I'm going to hold myself to it. My only edits today have been to deal with your situation, because I like you and I want to help. Otherwise I'm done. ATren (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mark, by writing an article in your user space then asking others to review and post it to main space seems to work well, as it did with The Gore Effect. Even if you were topic banned you would probably still be able to keep doing that, especially since I suspect the ArbCom is going to impose some very strict conduct rules on the AGW topic. If you did that and stayed completely out of AGW main space and didn't respond at all to any negative comments on your talk page I think your stress levels would probably greatly decrease. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would be cool, i enjoy doing book articles, and there are some very good ones coming out lately :) mark nutley (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if either of you are bored please take a look at Steven Milloy i am finding some godawfull crap in this BLP mark nutley (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant it, I'm done. I suggest you stay out of it too, at least until the decision is posted. ATren (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`ll just remove them, he does not deserve the courtesy of an edit summary. - this is like farting in an elevator cabin to spite your boss, ignoring the 25 other people in it. Edit summaries are not for the benefit of one person, but for all readers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ATren. You have new messages at Minor4th's talk page.
Message added 20:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Trying to get Marknutley blocked again?

Because I can't think of any other good reason why you just blew up my attempt to get his latest 1RR violation resolved quietly without further blocks. Did you think to ask Marknutley whether he wants to be splashed all over AE yet again? If you have any sense, please remove your latest post to AE so that this can be resolved without additional drama. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys my 1R parole is in CC articles, this is not one. Chill out. mark nutley (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, yes it is. The probation applies to "Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed)". A BLP of a prominent climate change sceptic certainly falls under this rubric. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya revelse just said on nukes talk. O well, i was gonna get canned anyway :) BTW, chris sorry for the way i spoke to you. I was just pissed off man. mark nutley (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I can understand that you were upset. I was trying to get this latest thing sorted out quietly so that you wouldn't get dragged to AE yet again. Guess that didn't work out. :( -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're a real pal to Mark. ATren (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

assuming

you saw [2] since I am tidying. --BozMo talk 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I misread your intent. Thanks for clarifying. ATren (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know...

This type of comment is exactly why I collapsed that thread. You are free to leave it up if you wish, but it would be great if you could retract that post. NW (Talk) 00:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1rr?

One. ATren (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Could you go through each of your edits on that article and explain why they are or are not a revert? You can skip the one with "rv" in the edit summary. Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One, two in the last 30 minutes or so. It appears that ChrisO may be at 2 as well. Is the article under 1RR? MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a POV tag is not a revert. ATren (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I can add PoV tags to articles as many times as I want, and it's never edit warring? Hipocrite (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add it multiple times. I added it once. But if you insist -- I'd gladly revert but WMC has already done it. The faction has arrived to push their agenda. ATren (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot I tagged that earlier. As I said, I'd self revert but it's already been done. Thanks for the heads up. ATren (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need the article is not on 1r anyway mark nutley (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New sanction for CC articles

You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Article tags. Sincerely, NW (Talk) 22:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN

Sorry for the confusion. I've struck out my comment where I assumed you understood that it's a BLP violation, and explained further in another comment. I hope my explanation now mades it clear why it is a BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Ugly mess. I probably don't want to get sucked into that drama, but if there's an RfC or Noticeboard discussion (or even a point where editors try to summarize the disputes), let me know. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That ugly mess is, unfortunately, typical of BLPs this topic area, but only in the BLPs of those who disagree with the mainstream. It's an ongoing problem, and it's all mainly due to a small group of editors who keep adding poorly sourced criticism back in whenever we remove it. I've been trying for two years to clean it up. Perhaps the arbcom case will help the situation, but I'm not terribly optimistic. It usually takes legal action for Wikipedia powers to wake up and correct such an obvious problem as this. ATren (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If poor sources are being used across multiple BLPs, then there is a serious problem that shouldn't be too hard to resolve beyond the need to monitor the articles carefully. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I don't agree that it's necessarily a poor source, although I agree with you on giving the benefit of the doubt when it comes to BLPs. The problem here is larger than this one article, and that is what is affecting this dispute. ChrisO, the editor who raised the issue at the board, tried to use some professor's self-made slide show as a source in a warming contrarian's BLP, and is now arguing that a Wall Street Journal editorial by a prestigious climatologist can't be used in this one. It's an obvious double standard, but beyond the scope of the BLPN to deal with it (the behavioral issues, that is). If ATren, me, or anyone else brings some examples such as the one I just mentioned about the professor's slide show, I expect you and the other regulars at that board will be consistent in your interpretation of the BLP policy, and I have no reason to doubt that you will. A consistent standard is what is needed for BLPs, and that is the big picture here. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find me very consistent on my interpretation of BLP. Take a look at my comments in other disputes at BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I'm a bit skeptical. I have raised several egregious BLP vios on the BLPs of those "skeptical" of GW, and I've rarely seen these arguments raised by you or anyone else. I've presented cases where blogs were used in BLPs and I still got very little support at BLP/N. In fact, Monckton just had several reports at BLP/N regarding much worse sourcing than this, and there was little concern expressed by outsiders. Now someone brings a case sourced to the WSJ, and suddenly others are showing up to strike it down. Now, you have indicated above a willingness to help with Monckton, and I appreciate that, but I guess I wish it hadn't gotten to this point. There have been many problematic BLPs like Fred Singer, Christopher Monckton, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer, Lawrence Solomon, etc, and we've never received outside help cleaning them up, despite coming to BLP/N with many of them. Personally, I got so frustrated with the lack of help at BLP/N that I stopped using it. So while I appreciate your assistance now, I really wish you and others would have stepped up one of those numerous other times when much more egregious violations were presented there. Maybe some of this never-ending conflict could have been averted. ATren (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, the place where you go wrong (imo), is to think that if sometimes people are in agreement with your view on a particular BLP case, then they must automagically, to be consistent, agree with you on other BLP cases. Your view of BLP is a set, other people's view of BLP can also be considered sets, some of those sets intersect, and in other places they do not intersect. No two BLP cases are exactly the same, there are different sources, different shades of grey, different context etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (remove this comment if you don't like me to add here; i won't be offended :-) )[reply]

Nonsense Kim. Your view seems to be "blogs are fine on those I disagree with, but WSJ op-eds are forbidden on people I like". Your double standard in this topic area is well documented. As a recent example, you were the one who argued relentlessly when I removed a slide show from an obscure professor's webpage as a source of harsh criticism in Monckton's BLP -- this was, what, two weeks ago? Your credibility on BLP matters is nil. ATren (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, despite your views on this - i believe (of course) that i have a rather consistent view about BLP. The trouble is in the details. [and i did check all of the cases in the ArbCom case, against my personal views - despite assertions to the contrary - i was following my views to the point] I was hoping that BLP could have been a part of the ArbCom case, but unfortunately was told that they would only look at conduct and not a content issues. Too bad, it would have resolved alot. My view is detailed somewhat here: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Editing_Principles. Please try to assume good faith on this - it has never been as simple as you present it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are slightly different issues. In the case of Mann, you have an incident which is extensively covered by reputable straight-news and academic sources and by partisan op-eds. In that situation, if we follow the principle of preferring the best available sources, it makes sense to lean on the former to the (near-)exclusion of the latter.

On the other hand, if a dispute is covered only in partisan op-eds and blogs, then we have much slimmer pickings to choose from in terms of sources. We should probably have a serious discussion about whether such disputes are notable enough to be covered at all in a serious encyclopedia. If we choose to cover them, then at best we can recapitulate the content of angry op-eds and self-published slide shows, which isn't a recipe for good encyclopedic coverage. At a glance, about 80% of Monckton's article consists of covering such disputes - it's more a catalog of everything he's ever said, and everything anyone's ever said about him, then a discriminating encyclopedic biography.

As an aside, I think part of the problem is the relatively indiscriminate use of WP:BLP as a weapon on all sides. For example, I recall a very acrimonious dispute in which it was argued that describing a retired professor as "retired" was a BLP violation. Ultimately, Cla68 proposed what I thought was a good compromise, but the point is that it was just a content dispute. Not every content dispute on a biography needs to go nuclear with BLP accusations. That's not aimed at ATren in particular - in fact, I've been fairly impressed with your even-handedness in applying WP:BLP to articles like William Connolley and others. It's more of a general observation. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Nota bene. I just don't see how that can improve the encyclopedia. It looks like you're just setting out to isolate a number of people as "them" and are stirring the pot a bit to promote the notion. As the only thing those people seem to have in common is their competence in scientific matters, I've been growing more and more disturbed at your approach. Please consider stepping back from that series of interactions. --TS 02:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you. Don't remove my comments. ATren (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Please be aware that I shall remove further attempts to inflame the already very incendiary situation. --TS 02:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an attempt to inflame, it was an attempt to explain why Cla edited his post three times so as not to say the wrong thing. "They" have created a situation where no label is possible, so we can't even talk about the elephant in the room: i.e. the existence of a group of editors who have edited as a faction for the last 3-5 years. By suppressing any and all labels, they suppress the ability to converse about them in a way that would be required in an arbcom case such as this. It's one of the many ongoing problems in this topic area. Maybe I'll start calling them the "faction who shall not be named", that couldn't offend anyone, right? ATren (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments made in good faith from long term editors is often not a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway: If ATren's comment is out of line, let the ArbCom clerk handle it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline

Hi, you voted strong oppose on the guideline based on it being an attempt to insert SPOV. Could you be more specific in your problem with the guideline? You are not the only one who has raised concerns with the guideline, I initially opposed it due to conerns. Concerns can only be resolves by discussing specific issuess related to the content of the guideline. We would welcome your views on the talk page.Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science-related_articles)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that RS requires any further qualification when it comes to science articles, and in fact, I believe having such a guideline would simply embolden the science editors to continue their purge of anything which doesn't fit their view as "non-fringe". See also the quote at the top of my user page. ATren (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention and participation

As you might know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]