Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive 4

"Why are we getting into this trench warfare?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lar (moved from project page)

Respons(es) to this post:

moved content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

end moved content

Blog comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, let me rephrase that - your proposed sanction hinges on the quality of the sourcing of the text removed. The problem is that, even aside from the unacceptable content, the edit was bad. Quotes were switched around to make it look like Curry was saying one thing, when the source had her using the same words to support something else. Other statements were spun, with qualifiers like "in particular" and "especially" which could not be reasonably drawn from the text. There was inappropriate generalisation - Curry's criticism of parts of the IPCC process was turned into an critique of the IPCC as a whole. In other words, the first and third paragraph - 161 of 213 words - were clearly inappropriate, so the only judgement call was whether WMC should have left the middle paragraph hanging on its own. And that says nothing about the WP:WEIGHT issue.

The premise of your proposed sanction was that (much of) the text removed well sourced. In truth, it wasn't. Some of it may have been attributed to a good source, but the quality of the source is irrelevant if an editor misrepresents it. Why do you stand by your proposed sanctions if they, in fact, have no foundations? And how you base a proposed sanction on the "quality" of sources without carefully examining the content of the sources and the way they are represented? Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I may not necessarily agree with it, but I find that analysis much more useful than repeating (6 times!!!) "you said blogs were impeccable" when I did not say any such thing, which I repeatedly clarified to no avail, which was your previous level of discourse. Thanks for making the effort, at last, although one could wish you would have tried sooner. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This would likely cause more problems than it solves. Ultimately the community catches on to people who are determined to destroy their own credibility. We are beginning to see glimmers of awareness here in the comments of other admins on the present case. Stay above the fray. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• While Lar may stand alone in suggesting (not advocating, since the comments are only within these pages or when specifically addressed to him elsewhere) that the AGW articles may benefit from Doctor Connelley being topic banned from them, he is not alone in regarding the attitude and conduct of Doctor Connelley as being detrimental to the editing environment currently found here. I do also, but my preferred method is to see if there are ways in which to remove the ability of Doctor Connelley from agitating some editors without removing his ability to apply his knowledge of the subject to the articles. Neither Doctor Connelleys past article contribution history, or the historical (and ongoing) efforts by now banned AGW skeptic orientated accounts, excuse Doctor Connelley's apparent and obvious disdain for AGW skepticism and those who may edit to that pov, nor his willingness to investigate the boundaries relating to what he may say to such editors without triggering restrictions put in place after a consensus that he had not been interacting at an optimum standard previously. You have to ask yourself, when complaining of Lar's supposed failings in commentating upon the perceived failings of others, why Doctor Connelley is already subject to restrictions within the probation area where other equally sound content contributors who subscribe to the consensus AGW view are not? Doctor Connelley can easily ensure that existing restrictions placed upon his ability to interact with some editors are not extended, and the current ones allowed to lapse without hindering him being able to edit articles and partake in talkpage discussions. Rather than seek to change Lar's views on how the disruption that apparently dogs Doctor Connelleys editing history in these places, why not see if Doctor Connelley is willing to edit and comment without upsetting some of the other editors - or is at least able to endure being forced to do so within some form of sanction or restriction. I have absolutely no problem with him being found to be the better man, if it means that the editing environment improves - and neither, I suspect, would Lar. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Connelley's apparent and obvious disdain for AGW skepticism and those who may edit to that pov - Have you ever bothered to check your facts? Have you ever bothered to read Stoat, or notice his unwillingness to call things denialism, even when the obviously fit the bill? We're talking about someone who's very middle of the road, very respectful to people like Lindzen, Michaels and the Pielkes. Far kinder than he is to Romm or Monbiot. He shows disdain for people who repeatedly spin articles away from NPOV - on either side. He's no more willing to tolerate what one might call "alarmist" POV pushing. I've seen people on that side appear genuinely hurt that he isn't willing to endorse their POV. Quite frankly, given the constant stream of shit that's aimed his way, he's remarkably polite. I remember him being unfailingly polite to Ed Poor for years, despite his views. I have seen him spend pages trying to explain science to skeptics in polite, respectful terms. You need to realise that the crap than ends up on these pages is only the tip of the iceberg. The constant stream of crap that gets inserted into articles by "skeptics" is mind-boggling. The nastiness that's routinely lobbed at William is shocking. This is the current reality. It would take the patience of a saint to sail through that crap without lobbing a few return shots. If the community has abdicated its responsibility to stop the crap thrown his way (often by editors), the community has little standing to complain about his responses. Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Guettarda that WMC is fairly middle of the road as far as I can tell scientifically. He does not suffer fools gladly though, and should because policy here is to do so. As I said elsewhere "broadly there are two prevalent "narratives"; one of which says that WMC continually being a bit short with other people (and controlling etc) is the source of all unpleasantness and one which says that WMC is a target for a lot of editors because he defends NPOV so diligently and sometimes inevitably he snaps back. Neither narrative is wholly correct, and I can see considerably elements of truth in each. WMC does need to improve his comments and understand why they are being unhelpful, but having continual badmouthing of various forms about him does not in my view strengthen the case against him, it supports the credibility of the second narrative. In general anyone who wants to show up the conduct of the other side would be better laying off and to my continual frustration neither party shows signs of wanting to do this." --BozMo talk 22:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that he was a target because he defends NPOV. He's a target because of who he is, because he has become a target of the, for want of a better word, denial machine. I remember back in the day when the Discovery Institute was sending people here, calling editors out by name. Luckily, while IDists are no less tenacious, (a) there were less of them, and (b) broadly speaking, church folk are more polite, at least on the surface. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar has made this sanction an ideal area for civil POV pushing by editors opposed to mainstream scientific views. In this particular instance he consistently picks on the slightest implication of incivility from WMC, at the same time demanding "leveling the playing field" in favour of fringe views, making broad brush accusations against mainstream editors such as his claim that there is a "cadre who spring to WMC's defense like clockwork", and belittling editors who take issues to Lar's own talk page in what I regard as a very uncivil manner.[1] The policy of suffering fools gladly is being given precedence over article content policies, to the detriment of Wikipedia. Reasonable standards of civility should apply, and I'd like to see an improvement from both Lar and WMC. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out how silly it looks when you talk to each other like this. It's not worth it. It just takes up space.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CONSENSUS sometime. --Nigelj (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(resp to Guettarda) I am shocked that you feel the need to link to a WP:BLOG to evidence your claim that WMC is not a rabid POV warrior, set upon destroying any and all dissent from the pov decided upon by the Scientriffic Kabal - I thought you white coat zealots disdained anything that hasn't been peer reviewed by people with more letters after their name than are included in them? Hang your head in shame, Sir.
Now, did that raise a smile? Do you think that I cleverly exaggerated the issue to humourous effect? Or perhaps you think I am being insulting to both Doctor Connelley, and those editors who feel that he is unfairly targetted? Maybe you are annoyed that I have reversed the arguemnt regarding use of blogs in articles, to make a WP:POINT. Angry, even...
These are the consequences of choosing to personalise comments, or to address the contributor rather than the content; even the most innocent of remarks may be taken out of context or poorly misunderstood. That is the simple point I am making regarding Doctor Connelleys continuing habit of addressing some of his remarks to the other party, rather than their edits. If it stopped, then the potential of collegiate and respectful editing increases.
As regards the invective found outside of WP directed toward those who concur with the scientific mainstream, this is no longer apparent within the WP editing sphere as previously. Admins, before I came on board, have been scrupulous in removing editors who were uninterested in content building and were using the articles as a platform to attack editors and denigrate the AGW consensus relating to climate change - and it would be very wrong to example any of the editors who contribute to a skeptic orientated pov as being motivated by anything other than a good faith belief that the RL issues with questioning the basis of CC is under represented - so perhaps it is time that some of the old "Warm War" warriors also change their style of responses. Nobody has to be nice, just some have to stop being un-nice.
Of course, I do not think of WMC in the terms I describe in the opening paragraph - but I was being WP:POINTY; and does this wrong addressing another make it right? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a question

RfC on Lar's involvement and possible bias? Is that the right venue? Polargeo (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What about this User:Polargeo/LarRfC. Any suggestions? I've never tried to bring an RfC before which probably shows. Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this needs more clarity. First set out the context, then the perceived problem, then ask for comments. Don't assume all editors know about the CC probation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary. The other admins are keeping things under control, as we see in the present case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SBHB. This is not ripe yet. There are far more disruptive elements than Lar at present - on both sides. When we get down to Lar, I'll happily help write the RFC. I further suggest that when we get down to Lar, we'll have mostly solved the problem - but, of course, I'm on the side of angels and banning lots of people for moderate time frames to see if that fixes the problem. Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll delete this then, unless anyone else has any further points. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's put the spider-man costumes away for today, shall we?

Just a note: I've been collecting evidence on the actions on every admin on that page, so if a request is brought against Lar, I will seek to expand it to consider all admins involved on this page, particularly 2/0, BozMo, and Polargeo, all of whom have taken positions that I believe are more indicative of bias than Lar. Note, in principle, I don't believe any of them should be removed, because they have all shown a willingness to work together and come to consensus, but if Lar's alleged bias is significant enough for removal from this process, then all admins should be held to that standard. But I hope we don't go down that road, because I think these admins work well together for the most part. ATren (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Very funny, exactly what admin actions of mine are you questioning, I'd be interested to know? As far as I am concerned go right ahead and make whatever RfCs you wish to, your comment neither affects me one way or the other. Particularly as I have no intention of becoming an enforcement admin in the CC area. Polargeo (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Oh and if you think this has anything to do whatsoever with Lar's opinions on CC, it doesn't I wouldn't care if Lar killed baby pandas by running over them with an SUV. I do care that an admin with a personal grudge and a history of goading an editor is pretending to be "uninvolved" Polargeo (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Polargeo: I would like to work with you to understand why you apparently feel that I am "an admin with a personal grudge and a history of goading an editor". Introspection is always hard but I don't see myself holding any grudges here, and I try hard never to goad anyone, regardless of provocation. I invite you to discuss this further with me at my talk. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Lar, on a totally unrelated matter (your BLP deletions, several months ago) your response to my assertion that your deletions were disruptive was a tirade against the "AGW cabal". You arrived here with unclean hands. When Dave Souza commented on your actions here, you brought up his vote on your Steward reconfirmation. There's every indication that you've imported existing dislikes and disputes into this page. That's what "holding grudges" is all about. Guettarda (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Guettarda, you're acting dishonestly/fanatically. He brought up the Steward vote to explain why he was recusing himself from passing judgment w.r.t. Dave's comments.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Not my recollection, though I may be wrong. But if you're going to make accusations of dishonesty and fanaticism, you really need to supply diffs. Those are mighty serious accusations. Guettarda (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC) You are, of course, aware that WP:POINT explicitly covers that, right? I mean, come on, above you have people talking Polargeo down from the ledge, and you show up to say "If you jump, I'll fucking kill this kitten!" Come now, try to work with people who disagree with you. This was over and done before you showed up, as Polargeo agreed that his proposal was a bad idea. Now you're just going to cause repolarization. When you delete your comment, please delete this also. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any serious problems with Lar's engagement. He is uninvolved but does hold an opinion (as most of us do) on the way in which global warming should be covered. His insight into the thinking of the less scientifically-oriented and more politically engaged editors is sometimes valuable, and sometimes raises legitimate concerns about the balance between science and politics. Now I cannot even begin to understand that politically engaged view (climatology to me is an interesting branch of the earth sciences) but I do recognise that he shares that view of global warming as largely a socio-political field with quite a few other editors and he articulates it far better than most, which helps to temper my bafflement.

If Lar occasionally presents opinions on probation enforcement that differ greatly from the opinions of others, that is not a problem. Those opinions of course may sometimes reflect Lar's particular perspective of global warming as an intensely socio-political field, just as (for an example) my own perception of climate science as just a branch of the earth sciences that happens to have real world implications colors my take on our coverage and even on conduct issues. That's the kind of spread of opinion we're used to working with on Wikipedia, and no experienced Wikipedian need ever be uncomfortable about it.

If some of Lar's conduct should itself ever become problematic then the probation itself could of course be used to remedy that. But since he's a good listener and very responsive on his talk page I don't see that ever happening. --TS 15:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, I've found Lar's talk page a place to get insulted and not a place where Lar has listened to me. Not ideal responses from Lar, I'm glad that others have found him more helpful and would hope that Lar will endeavour to treat all editors with respect. . . dave souza, talk 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found Lar's talk page "a place to get insulted", too, actually. But I do read every comment and try to take it in the spirit it was offered. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar's talkpage is a place where he sometimes politely and sometimes impolitely refuses to listen to any criticism of himself. Polargeo (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that's not true. I don't think it's a view that's generally held. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a view held by me anyway. Now this is going a bit too far... --BozMo talk 17:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Am rather busy just now, but given developments I'll try to discuss these serious issues with Lar on his talk page, and trust that this time he won't just dismiss my views as "snark". . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar has quite evidently gone off the rails recently and the usual admin sucking up to him should really cease. Polargeo (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just "wow". ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to shatter your illusions, Lar, but your use of your talk page is neither welcoming nor indicates any willingness to give serious consideration to views that go against your preconceptions. Your comments above which were moved from the rfe page don't show a balanced approach to the views of other admins. . . dave souza, talk 16:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes , sorry but anyone in any doubt please follow all of Lar's comments in Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar_(moved_from_project_page) and bear in mind that these comments were made in a section for uninvolved admins and had to be moved here, even here they are stunning! I think off the rails is putting it mildly. Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I chose not to contest the move but I don't think it was appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Serious request

Please reopen Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Polargeo this is a genuine serious request. I would appreciate if it is denied then fine but just closing it before any admin discussion is not good. Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

I made this suggestion before, I believe it was at 2/0 talk page but not sure, but I'm going to suggest this again. Watching this page as an outsider I find most of the conversation so silly and not important. It's like editors are trying to find anything, even the smallest of edits, to come here and file a complaint or add more noise. Why not lock down all of these pages for say two weeks or a month? This would give everyone a very needed break from all of this mess and it would also make editors edit other articles. After the pages are unprotected then administrators and editors alike can see how the editors have reacted to the articles that are now under constant dispute react. If an editor(s) disappears during this time, only to return after the protection is lifted, it will show important information about whether an editor(s) is here for the project or for an agenda. It will allow for cooler heads to prevail too. A lot of the comments on the main page here is just noise, editors just saying the same thing or stirring the pot. I think that most of the editors are trying hard to work these articles in a positive way. But that being said, there are some who are only trying to push an agenda. I am not going to mention anyone's name so please don't ask. This suggestion has been tried many times, just see AN/i as proof of this, the only difference would be that a lot more articles would be unavailable to edit. Many things have been tried so why not try this? If it doesn't work well then it doesn't work but I think it's worth trying. Just my thoughts about things, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a never ending supply of trolls. You can change wikipedia but you cannot change the world. Also your suggestion is the first step in killing wikipeida altogether and should be dismissed instantly. Polargeo (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Want to see less people jumping on the bandwagon then shut down Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation.This area is a distortion and distillation of all that is wrong. There may now be a little more enforced civility and a little less edit warring but I don't really think it has improved articles in any way, quite the reverse and it is article quality that this should be about. Polargeo (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, the sanctions are being used to win content disputes against one's ideological opponents. The most recent requests for enforcement are so trivial, they are not worth the community's time to discuss them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and as long as people do discuss them this will encourage more of them. Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I have started the process Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar if anyone wishes to endorse this then please do. Polargeo (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

All comments are welcome, of course, not just endorsements of any particular view. I'm sure that's what Polargeo meant, rather than phrasing that might be taken as canvassing by some. 98.243.219.111 (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

I appreciate that LessHeard vanU intended to draft an enforceable remedy along the lines of "comment on the edit, not the editor...or risk a short block", but it didn't come out like that. One of William M Connolley's remedies actually requires him to explain reverts, so he has to comment on some edits, but the drafting proposed could be read as forbidding such comments.

I'm not convinced the intended remedy is required, because the standard of editing in this area has been pretty appalling, from poor sourcing past gratuitous misinterpretation of sources and cherry-picking right through to excessive weight on speculation and minority opinion.

But if we do go down this route I suggest that it would be in order to expect and welcome properly formatted, well researched enforcement requests for tendentious editing. This would be especially important in cases of egregiously poor editing choices, where the editor is aware of the problem with his edits but has not improved his standards. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My middle paragraph above is garbled. I mean that Connolley's words were appropriate to the circumstances and brief, so I think it's taking them out of context to describe them as a personal attack. There was some utterly abysmal editing going on, obvious evidence of either "POV-pushing" or gross carelessness with sources, and rather cavalier treatment of the biography of a quite eminent climatologist. Connolley isn't just called an expert to salve his ego, he knows the ground well and he took appropriate action. Whether he took the trouble to invite the offending parties and those who supported them in their bad editing decisions should not really matter. They should not expect to be thanked, nor should they be led to believe that they are owed a curtsy. There is a good reason why we don't want poor editing choices made on biographies of living people. Those editors should be told that they are doing it wrong, and undue restraint on expression in such circumstances is not likely to help that. Tasty monster (=TS ) 02:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this editing restriction is necessary, but should be applied to all articles and all people in the probation area. TS, this encyclopedia is not being run for the good of any one persons biography - encyclopedia building is greater than any one climatologist. That means that it is necessary to deal with editors whose opinions may be the opposite of your own, whose opinions may even be wrong. It is necessary to be able to do so in a civil environment.

You could call me names if you liked, but I am sat here with my fingers hovering over the keys, and whatever I write I preview and then save - it is a choice to respond how I do, not a kneejerk reaction. My response to you cannot be justified from you calling me names, or even if I believe that you have wrongly edited.

In the scenario you describe you have one editor who 'knows' they are right and edits based on that, which is fine except that the other editor also believes he is 'right'. It takes consensus to work out what right really is, and that takes a civil editing encironment. Being right doesn't give a person any special editing privelages, or civility waivers.

The fact is that it is always possible to comment on the edit without commenting on the editor. If someone makes X reverts it is possible to alert them to what they are doing wrong without calling them a POV pusher, or childish, or not interested in the science, AGW septic, foolish, foreign, industry-paid, a car-lover, or whatever. Wiki has policies, it is those policies that editors fall foul of - everything else is a weak personal attack.

All editors editing CC should be under the same restriction, or what is the point. Anyone visiting the CC talkpages should see that editors are adhering to Wiki guidelines, or what was the point in the sanction process. The sanctions should be fostering an environment for all to edit comfortably in - then the CC editors can work on content. Right now everyone is allowed to bait each other until someone goes too far and their editing, however valid that may be, is restricted. So restrict everyone to civility parole and only let them comment on edits and their validity, not what they think are the motivations behind such edits, and no more baiting.

Sanctioning WMC alone for this is like putting him in a cage so he can't bite back when he is poked with a stick. Instead take away everyones sticks and you won't need the cage. Weakopedia (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo's views on what constitutes a personal attack

No and again no. I have added the text to the enforcement but I feel it should be here also. This whole Comment on content, not on the contributor is massively overused often mistakenly to signify that something is a WP:personal attack. This is a misrepresentation of not only the rule but also the spirit of the rule and is hence WP:wikilawyering. After outlining the clear cases of what a personal attack is the actual text finishes with the statement When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. If you are trying to class WMC's statement as a personal attack based on the fact that he has actually mentioned the contributor you are misinterpreting the rule in a quite extreme but unfortunately all too common way. Polargeo (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Since neither TS nor I said that, would you mind rephrasing or moving your comments to a more appropriate location? Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

One of William M Connolley's remedies actually requires him to explain reverts - indeed. And I notice that requirement isn't on any of the others on 1RR parole. And I notice they frequently don't bother William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My middle paragraph above is garbled. I mean that Connolley's words were appropriate to the circumstances and brief - I haven't got a clue what words we're talking about here. For those not following in obsessive details, can you supply diffs? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe he is discussing the diffs Cla68 presented in this section, as that is where LHVU made his reccomendation about enhanced civility paroles. Weakopedia (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? If that is true, LHVU is a delicate flower William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with Weakopedia. Biographies of living persons are not of less importance than the encyclopedia. The opinion of an ignoramus who thinks he's right isn't equal to that of a well informed editor who explains why he is wrong. If there are editors who believe that Wikipedia policy is there to enable and encourage civil POV pushing, they are in for a very rude awakening. All Ideas are not equal. Blunt but civil comments on the inappropriateness of exceptionally poor arguments or misconceived editing approaches should not be discouraged. Tasty monster (=TS ) 12:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say that someone who is wrong should have their opinins given equal weight. We have BLP policy for establishing what goes in the articles, however that policy doesn't allow for incivility in it's enforcement. The problem is not blunt, civil comments on edits or arguments, but a general climate of blunt, less than civil comments on editors and their motivations. That isn't a problem with any one editor, but it is a problem. Weakopedia (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Connelley, I assure you I am a hardy perennial and certainly no shrinking violet. I am simply following the admin remit in promoting a good editing environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that there is some disagreement on the question of whether William M. Connolley's comments were uncivil. When somebody wants to say something about poor quality editing I say to them that they should go and say it on the user talk page, which is part of our dispute resolution process, and if they still don't resolve matters they can go up the resolution chain.

Would it be acceptable to explicitly state that William M. Connolley is not forbidden to pursue dispute resolution which may involve negative statements about the quality of another editor's contributions?

It seems to me that, having set up the probation to stop our articles turning into tripe, we would do a disservice to our encyclopedia if we discouraged legitimate dispute resolution against the tripe-mongers by those whose edits have made the global warming articles among those most widely praised--by independent, qualified, external experts--on Wikipedia. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to correct the monster here. Probation was most assuredly not set up to "stop our articles turning into tripe" but to manage conduct issues (see the original discussion leading up to enactment of the probation). Whether the articles turn into tripe is basically irrelevant to the probation as long as people are nice to each other and follow the letter of policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I look at the uninvolved admins who have chosen to engage in this area and I see none so inexperienced that they might see the enforcement of the civility policy as the primary goal of this probation, nor do I see any who would, by some freak of English Wikipedia's process for selecting administrators, not understand that the aim of the project is to produce an encyclopedia that accurately reflects the verifiable facts. We may differ on the question of whether the planet is warming or cooling, but we can all agree that we must report what the results of scientific research are telling us. This is why we have a probation now: in November and December the process was disrupted to the extent that this probation was proposed and established. The goal was then and remains now to produce the highest quality encyclopedia possible. We cannot do if we write tripe in order to placate the ignorant.

And that's why this section is called:

Tendentious editing

and not

Editors who get a little stroppy about crappy editing

--TS 03:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

LHvU says "I am simply following the admin remit in promoting a good editing environment." If the remit is simply to enforce WP:CIV then in a simplistic sense that's being done: the result is a poisoned editing environment ideal for WP:Civil POV pushing. Attention to WP:TE and to the implications for article content in relation to other policies such as WP:WEIGHT would help. . . dave souza, talk 06:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave, that's an essential point you've made there. The enforcers here must also take into account what the scientific world is saying, and give it (and the editors supporting it) much more leeway. Even-handed "be nice to each other" treatment of pro-mainstream, pro-science editors and, on the other hand, editors who get their information from blogs, industry-funded propaganda and Congresspuppets is so, so wrong! I am already deeply disturbed by what I perceive is biased oversight by at least one admin here, and now it seems, possibly two. It's astonishing that we are dealing with denialism and scientific ignorance at sysop level, and especially in an area like this, important as it is to the future of humanity. For shame, I say. A scientific education to Masters level, which includes study of climate science, should be made a prereq. for admin oversight here. ► RATEL ◄ 09:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Would a letter from MENSA advising me that I have an IQ of 144 - and thus just missing the requirment for membership - be acceptable in its stead? Or perhaps a Diploma from the University of Life (I'm sure I could download one from the hinderwebs)? What about a Long Service Award for being 50 years old - I might be able to bundle that with the previous? Surely that would count for something? If you need actual certificates I should be able to rustle up some GCE and CSE's (and a CAA or two, just for rarity value), perhaps an AAA two star award, although I have long lost track of my Cycling Proficiency Certificate. Actually, I think I might just stick with the results of my IQ test and conduct myself in only discussing my actions with people of equal or greater raw intelligence (as evidenced) as myself... Not, of course, an avenue I would pursue but I trust clarifies why appeals to authority is inappropriate in a open editing environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

IQ is like reading age, they seem to give everyone at least 150-odd these days, same as us all being "Dr". And I don't think even the great WMC did climate change as a topic in his degree? I could only claim some meterology. Cycling proficiency though is a start, how about me doing the Styrkeprøven is 23 hours 43 minutes in 1998? --BozMo talk 11:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I can claim the qualification dave souza ESSC (Edinburgh Schools Swimming Certificate). As far as I'm concerned anyone here is just as good as their edits show, but admittedly my appraisal of the more technical aspects is extremely limited, so I just have to do the best I can. . . dave souza, talk 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant side issues, or talk as if the probation was only ever about civility.

The fact is that the uninvolved admins are already doing a pretty good job of reining in cases of bad editing. In at least one very recent case, for example, editors have been warned about their poor editing choices and their unresponsiveness to expressions of concern about sourcing and balance.

So tendentious editing is within our remit, it can be and has been dealt with appropriately, and I predict above that we will see a lot more of this approach in the future. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone, and in particular to young LHvU and TS. The feeling I was getting, that there was undue focus on demanding an unrealistic standard of extreme politeness from some editors at the expense of looking at proper attention to weight and article quality, may well have been mistaken. I'm glad to be assured that it ain't that bad, and am hopeful that TS is right in predicting things will get better. dave souza, talk 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley blocked 24 hours - requesting leave to edit wip in userspace

As the blocking sysop I have no objections to a conditional unblock being granted, but would note that KDP has protested that the previous unblock was violated by Mn. Any admin inclined to grant the request may care to review the discussion at User talk:Marknutley#Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical question: Blocked users can edit their own talk pages. Does this exemption apply to their whole talk space? That is, could Mark work on a draft article as User_talk:Marknutley/NewArticle as opposed to User:Marknutley/NewArticle? (Any admins care to block themselves and test this? ;-)) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You can, unfortunately, only edit your actual talk page while blocked, not any subpage. He can easily work on the draft article by putting the rest of his discussions in a collapse box though. NW (Talk) 14:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Tested... NW is correct! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification for why i protest, since much of this seem not to be in Mark's talk page archive:

Mark was blocked for 48 hours on 20:35 April 1[2], and conditionally unblocked 23:11 April 1[3] to work on his drafts. He broke this several times:

1. 18:50 April 2[4] talk on User talk:Melesse
2. 19:28 April 2[5] talk on User talk:Alexh19740110
3. 10:29 April 3 Created Andrew Montford [6] (and subsequently edited it)
4. 11:26 April 3 Created The Hockey Stick Illusion [7] (and subsequently edited it)
5. 13:00 April 3 Created Stacey International [8]
6. 14:40 April 3 Edited Cao Yong (not a new article) [9]
7. 19:22 April 3 [10] talk on User talk:Nsaa
8. 19:44 April 3 Edited Cao Yong again [11]
9. 19:48 April 3 Vandalism revert on Arvi, Wardha [12]

I notified Mark that i would protest about such conditional unblocking in the future here[13] and notified 2over0 about it[14].

This of course may mostly have been a mistaken assumption over what the conditions where - but i feel that if such a request is granted again, then there must be consequences stated as to what will happen, if he oversteps again. (And a strict definition of what the limits are). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

NW's suggestion of using a collapse box is appropriate, given the history of misinterpreting things that are not pure black and white. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust

I suggest that all that needs to be done on this occasion is issue an absolutely clear and final warning endorsed by multiple admins. He must understand that further engagement on the topic will lead to a reset or extension of the ban. Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that within the request against TGL that there is a section for comments by others (that is, other than the nominator) concerning that request? This is the talk page for the CC probation page - if you have specific comments about an individual case, rather than comments about the CC probation process itself, it would be much better to put them in the appropriate section. There is no reason to open a two-pronged discussion, it only dilutes the debate. Weakopedia (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

For a combination of technical reasons I am sometimes unable to comment on the project page. My comments are still perfectly readable here, but anybody who wants to move them there is welcome to do so. Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW if we had got a rapid apology and acceptance by tgl I would have been strongly tempted to agree but the reaction claiming the original ban was wrong and accusing others of all sorts makes me less inclined to this. --BozMo talk 08:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really taking that side of it seriously. The minority faction has a long history of alleging unequal treatment at every opportunity. That in part comes from its ideological commitment to denying that it is the minority faction (I've recently been looking at blogs and this is standard operating practice there in a way that echoes conduct here very nicely).

So, I don't see any sense in penalizing this editor specifically for propagating a false meme that is characteristic of his chosen ideological identity. He's going to be stroppy and have unrealistic expectations; then again that's what led to his ban in the first place. Since the admins are letting all the other minority editors get away with the same ridiculous bluffing, while not being taken in by it, I surmise that it's as well to turn a blind eye in this case too. An alternative would be to warn all editors that attacking the admins on the probation page will attract sanction. Bad idea. There be dragons! Tasty monster (=TS ) 11:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my final comment, which comes across as far more cryptic than I intended, I'm referring to the Arbitration Committee's fondness for the notion that admins are fair game and should just suck up the attacks. Not exactly fair, I've always thought, but it's probably the lesser of two evils. If you have power to sanction editors, you have to let them get in their free kick. Sometimes they may have a valid point. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As an admin I do not respond to retaliation in a deliberate attempt to wind up the attacker by means of my sanctimoniousicityness - but sometimes I relent and "snap back" to provide them with the sense of self worth in the mistaken belief that a barb has struck home... I can be well cruel, like that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to remember that. And hope everyone else forgets it, in case I have occasion to use it later. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information, the conversation about TGL is in archive 2. After that I believe, 2/0 made the next sanction. Hope this helps, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed boilerplate for scope of a standard topic (article+talk) ban

At the current discussion regarding TheGoodLocust's topic ban, there is some discussion of the proper scope of such a ban under this probation. I would like to propose that, as it is likely that more topic bans will be enacted here, we spend a little time now in the interests of consistency, predictability, and not re-inventing the wheel with every RfE thread. I do not think we have encountered any issues with article-only bans, so this is relevant only to article+talk bans.

1. Appeals are always welcome. If someone starts abusing the RfE board, we need to kick it up to AN/I. Any appeal here should be its own section, and a banned editor should not comment on other threads while the appeal is being discussed.
2. RfC/U and ArbCom are not covered. Relevant discussions on: content mediation pages, AfD and suchlike project space, and content noticeboards like RS/N are covered. Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force is also covered.
3. I am not sure whether WQA should be covered, but probably.
4. All articles and article talkpages bearing the probation notice are covered.
5. A banned editor may continue to edit unrelated sections of covered articles provided they do not do so for the sole or primary purpose of pursuing a personal dispute originating or acted out in the probation area. For instance, Kary Mullis is covered, but there is a lot to say about inventing PCR without touching on climate change.
6. A banned editor is expected and required to exercise reasonable discretion and judgement in editing articles not bearing the probation notice. For instance, Energy policy of the United States does not carry a notice, but does deal partially with issues of climate change.
7. A banned editor may not participate by proxy by mooting solicited or unsolicited suggested edits or article directions at any venue, including usertalk.
8. I think a statement that discussion of the topic in general terms is okay while specific involvement is disallowed would be too open to (mis)interpretation to be useful in promoting a peaceful and productive editing environment. I think that we should not make a distinction between discussion in general terms and discussion of specific edits or articles. Such a distinction would be too open to (mis)interpretation to be useful in promoting a peaceful and productive editing environment. To my reasoning, such general discussion should also be covered by this type of ban.

In accordance with Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, User:Example is banned until yyyy-mm-dd from all articles and discussions related to the topic of climate change, broadly construed. Climate change related discussions at noticeboards or user talk pages are included. The dispute resolution mechanisms Requests for comment/User conduct and Arbitration are explicitly excepted. If you wish to appeal this ban, please raise a discussion with the imposing administrator or at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you for your contributions. ~~~~

Does this look like an idea worth exploring? Point five is just asking for trouble, but I think it is the right way to go. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Very worth exploring. At a high level I'm already in agreement, need to pore over it in more detail but yes, good work. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

2over0 refers to "discussion of the topic [climate change] in general terms" as if this were uncontroversial. I do not myself go out of my way to abuse Wikipedia by using it as a platform for discussing my views on controversial topics, and if ever banned from a topic I would be especially careful. There is simply no reason why I or anybody else should broadcast their views on any subject under the guise of "discussion of the topic in general terms." to specifically grant this right to an editor who is topic banned for reason is perverse and cannot conceivably act to guide the banned user away from bad habits. Please reconsider. Wikipedia is not a forum, so there is no reason why an inalienable right of general discussion should be presumed to exist. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor point: if they are free to appeal that means free to work on "drafts" in their own user space so where does this become attack pages etc? Another minor point: if it is worded as though this was the lenient alternative to an outright ban from Wikipedia the palatability and effectiveness might be higher? --BozMo talk 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1) I don't think working on drafts ought to be allowed, at least not at any length. Notepad exists, after all. 2) yes. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My experience from watching these things is that sanctions work best when they are as clear and unambiguous as possible. In contrast the proposal given above contains many subtleties and calls for discretion. I appreciate the intent but am concerned that the proposal will cause too many problems. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I like this I also agree with your unease. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an editor with a fairly strong history of testing boundaries. It would be fairer, given the immediate circumstances of the case, to give him very clear and specific bounds that are consistent with other sanctions. A topic ban meaning "keep away from the topic, and we mean it, don't even think about discussing it on Wikipedia" would be less painful in the long run, and far easier to justify. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think 2/0 is proposing something in future for the general case. The no exceptions version could be used when it was warranted even if this general case thingie gets adopted. ++Lar: t/c 22:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had forgotten that this was a proposal for the general case. But why would we want to introduce a novel latitude into the ban terms in the wake of a case where clearly such latitude created problems? I just don't understand where this idea that a topic ban is somehow not really a topic ban came from. Let's just go for clarity, and in the unlikely event that we ever want banned users hanging around engaging in "general discussion" of the very topic on which they have been banned from editing, then we can discuss it at that time and in that specific context. Tasty monster (=TS ) 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, I think I am proposing that general discussion should be covered by a topic ban. I reworded point 8 above, as I think I see where the phrasing was being parsed differently than I intended. The numbered bullets are to try to make sure that we all agree on what we mean, so it should not matter who or where a hypothetical future topic banned editor asks for clarification. The italicized text is meant to be filled and copied so we are consistent across similar cases. We could drop the middle two sentences from the boilerplate if you think they encourage wikilawyering. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is excellent, and support it fully. A shorter version might read, in part after the account name and closing date, "A topic ban is a prohibition on editing or discussing the subject on any page in Wikipedia space, save ArbCom or Requests for comment pages." Although this may appear to be the concise representation of the limitation preferred by SBHB and TS, I don't think it would be the correct tone to use with someone who has just been so sanctioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that point 8 is necessary for a general ban. This board is about conduct, not content. It is possible to have an editor who is familiar with the topic, even scientifically qualified, but has problems dealing with people not of his opinion. Such a persons conduct may get them reprimanded, but it may not be to the encyclopedias benefit to prevent them from discussing the subject. I think a restriction like what you propose not only restricts the person being sanctioned, it restricts the entire community. I don't think that should be a default option, and should only be specified when necessary. Another scenario is that some editors are prepared to work with 'problem' editors to encourage a better standard of editing, and point 8 could prevent them from addressing the problem directly. Wiki has enough policies about meatpuppetry and soapboxing without making point 8 a default for any editor restricted by this probation. Weakopedia (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@LHvU - I like that wording, as long as we specify RfC/U to avoid any ambiguity with content RfCs.

@Weakopedia - that could certainly be a way forward in some cases. My personal preference is to start from a clear base in cases where we need an article+talk ban instead of just an article ban, but I would like to hear such a proposal next time a specific case comes up. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "some RfC's" as an alternate to RfC/U, since there may be cases of content related RfC where the the banned editor is necessarily permitted to comment - as well as User conduct ones. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility?

Surely this sort of post should be subject to enforcement? It was posted on an article talk page, but it has nothing to do with the article. It insults, bullies and belittles a fellow editor and it assumes bad faith. A couple of the more egregious quotes in my opinion are;

• "the root problem is [...] Marknutley's unacceptably poor editing and pig-headed obstinacy",
• "I've come across editors like him before who have wasted vast amounts of the community's time",
• "If other editors have any diffs of particularly egregious conduct that should be included in the RfC, please let me know"

Thepm (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought about reporting it, because it's a clear example of personalizing a content debate and disparaging another editor on an article talk page. I don't remember seeing ChrisO do it before, however, so if he says that he won't do it again I don't think any corrective action is necessary. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Mark is a textbook example of what happens in this topic area when a new editor comes into the mix from a skeptical perspective. After weeks of mocking and baiting from a few abusive editors, the skeptical editor becomes bitter and reactionary, and starts doing really stupid things. He just got blocked for a blatant copyvio, and recently he's been unable to reign in his hostility. But he's a big boy and he is responsible for his own actions, and if he can't control his hostility then maybe it's best he's removed for a lengthy period. It's too bad the true aggressors are never sanctioned, but I have a feeling that's slowly changing. ATren (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Like a heat incited virus plague on wiki, the offender must have developed immunity while spreading toxic harm in the wiki climate. Where there is civility, there is a cure for what sickens the planet.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

@Cla68 - I don't entirely agree. ChrisO seems to be a very useful editor most of the time, but I felt that this was particularly poor form. Doesn't belong at all imo, but certainly doesn't belong on an article talk page. I can't help but wonder how other editors would have been treated if they had posted this. Pick two regular posters at random, replace MarkNutley with one name and ChrisO with the other. Consider for a moment how that would have been dealt with. Repeat the exercise. Thepm (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you would like the administrators to issue a formal decision on ChrisO's behavior, then you need to file a formal request, which will, theoretically, compel them to act, if at a minimum to give an opinion on it. I generally only file a request when I think an editor has clearly crossed the line and has done so in a similar way before. If you think this falls into that category, then you should act on it. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the three quotes above are unreasonable. If put into an RFC (which, as I understand it, is ChrisO's intent) they would merely be considered Fair Comment. If ChrisO's only sin is putting them in the wrong place, you have a very weak case for any sanctions. Just ask him to move it if you like. But the complaint about unacceptably poor editing is ironaically poor timing: MN has just been blocked for a week for... unacceptably poor editing. Asserting that somehow people have forced him into making copyvio's is just not plausible. The idea that making an RFC counts as personalising a dispute is absurd. Cla is merely weighing in favour of his diealological colleague (you'll note that unlike ATren, Cla doesn't even pretend not to be a "skeptic"). Meanwhile, ATren has aquired a spurious g William M. Connolley (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• <ec> Thepm, good points. An editor's disruptive behaviour on an article will usually be discussed at first on the article talk page, with specific reference to the behaviour itself, but Chris was going into excessive and inappropriate detail rather than focussing on the article. I've mentioned it to Chris, and trust he won't repeat that. The behaviour of MarkNutley does seem tendentious, and in the same thread he returns to arguing about blog based content with dubious relevance to the article suject. This was already the subject of considerable talk page discussion. Cla, if my recollection is correct you're mentoring Mark on use of sources, perhaps you could discuss the sourcing with him. Atren, your analysis appears to be inverted from what I've seen – commonly, a new editor comes here to promote a fringe viewpoint, and persistently refuses advice and corrections of edits to meet policies, developing a battleground approach and a facility in tendentious editing. A polite welcome to newbies is always good, but it seems more reasonable to find that "the skeptical editor becomes bitter and reactionary" because they don't get their way on articles. . . dave souza, talk 07:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"An editor's disruptive behaviour on an article will usually be discussed at first on the article talk page, with specific reference to the behaviour itself..."

And this is now considered to be an acceptable given under Wikipedia dispute resoulution guidelines? The "disruptive" ad hominem appears to be a current rhetorical weapon of choice within an article talk section which starts the ANI ball rolling. Why has this de facto ad hominem apparently been deemed acceptable and appropriate within article talk? JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if it put some people's noses out of joint, but I'm entirely serious about taking Marknutley through a user conduct RfC (you can read the work-in-progress draft here). His behaviour on that talk page is an absolutely typical example of the problems with this editor. One of the problems with this enforcement regime, I think, is that in dealing with issues piecemeal we lose sight of the bigger picture - and the bigger picture in this case is that Marknutley is, by some way, the worst non-banned editor I've come across in this topic area. He's been blocked more often and for longer than any other non-banned editor in this topic area, his conduct is a textbook example of counterproductive behaviour and his research is of a very poor quality - the fact that he's just been blocked for a week for multiple copyright violations demonstrates that there's a real problem here that needs to be addressed. Note that I didn't call for him to be blocked or banned; I'm going to propose that he be mentored (and I'll see if I can find him a mentor) and that he should take a break (preferably voluntary) from this topic area for a few months so that he can learn the ropes in a less conflict-prone topic area. The onus then will be on him to develop his editorial skills to the point where he can be a useful member of the Wikipedia community. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• ChrisO, I think you're missing the point. Do you agree that this post was inappropriate? Thepm (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You're pushing this too hard. I think we're all agreed that the place for an RFC isn't an article talk page, so yes you have a point. But your heading at the top of this section is also "inappropriate", because the issue isn't ChrisO's civility, this issue is merely over the placement of the comments William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

@ATren ...and starts doing really stupid things... I wouldn't disagree with you on that aspect, but on a heading marked "civility" isn't it odd that you're accusing MN of stupidity? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've encountered such personalised complaints on article talk pages before, though never from Chris Owen. Typically I would remove it entirely and firmly remind the complainant to follow dispute resolution. Further action is seldom necessary. Having said that, I think Chris ought to have known better. Tasty monster (=TS ) 11:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps eds are losing faith in the formal DR complaint process. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Block of editors edit warring at Bishop Hill (Blog) article

I have blocked Dave souza (talk · contribs), ChrisO (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) 24 hours each for blanking content, redirecting the remaining article, and reverting the aforementioned within 24 hours of my protecting and unprotecting the article Bishop Hill (Blog), on the basis that there was an edit war and no seeking of consensus or comment on this page. I have made it clear on each editors talkpage, and the article talkpage, that I am happy to have my actions reviewed at whatever appropriate venue they choose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have now reprotected the article after reverting a merger / redirect and subsequently banned the editor concerned from editing the page until the conclusion of the RfC on the merger. I have noted my actions and requested a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of actions, where I suggest all comments should be redirected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You've edited the page back to your favoured version, and then protected it. This is a clear abuse of your powers, as is the purported "ban" of PG, which is baseless William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Cla

I have replied to Cla's question [15] on this page because we are going off topic on the main page. Here is my answer

• Answer is no, because I don't think some of them should have separate articles and my wikipedia philosophy is very anti the concept of scratting about for rubbish to flesh out articles. It is a difficult view to uphold in the current climate of "I have an RS which mentions a name in passing so I am free to add any info from that source" in this case wikipedia is best served by avoiding excessive content forks and coatracks. A short quality paragraph or two in the Montford article describing the blog and its viewpoint and a list of the events the blog has been covering with wikilinks to the relevent balanced articles and using all of the current inline references would be the best way to GA status in that it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail Polargeo (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood which articles you meant. Answer is I will always be willing to help in editing, even if I only end up adding the odd source or wikignoming. Although I am happy for the ClimateAudit to remain merged. Polargeo (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed response. I have some additional sources that I think will help in establishing Climate Audit as a viable, stand alone article. I plan on first, however, working on RealClimate. There are enough sources, in my opinion, that RealClimate has a chance at not just Good Article, but Featured Article. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My feeling about blogs is that if they have a single author who is notable then a split is only good under two conditions. 1) The blog is more than marginally notable, in and of itself. ie real significant coverage in multiple RS about the blog, not just its contents or its author. 2) The article on the individual is too big or is very unbalanced in its coverage of the individual, giving undue weight to the blog. However, if the person has no individual notability for an article then a redirect to the blog is in order. If the person is individually notable mainly for their blogging activities then their biog being full of information about those activities is not a problem. Polargeo (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts here are really based on avoiding unnecessary content forking. We don't need a fresh separate article for every notable thing, redirects to sections are good at avoiding repeating stuff all over the place. Now I've gone on off topic too long and this section should probably be collapsed :). Polargeo (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, whether any or all of these AGW blog articles stay or go, of course, depends on community consensus as to their notability. As far as NPOV goes, however, I stand behind the neutrality of the DeSmogBlog article. In fact, a couple of editors have complained that that article doesn't contain enough criticism of the subject. As much as I can help it, the articles on these other blogs, like RealClimate or Watts Up With That, will maintain the same standard of neutrality. If you would like to help out with that or in other ways, your assistance is, of course, welcome and appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a small mistake, AfD and notability should really mainly decide on whether something is deleted or not. The structure of articles and what is merged/redirected and where is best not going to AfD or being decided on by AfD. AfD rarely sorts these issues out in any reliable fashion. Polargeo (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Let's go build some articles. Cla68 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Global Climate Change??

Would it be at all sensible for someone to try to make a proposal for a WikiProject Global Climate Change? The idea is that it would have members from "both sides of the street". I can think of some arguments for and against it.

For:

1. There are enough people interested in the topic to make a wikiproject.
2. It would be good to have a forum which was not dedicated to games of gotcha.
3. It has been suggested that it would be good to have a forum which did not give special privileges to uninvolved admins.
4. Another wikiproject on a contentious subjects, WikiProject Paranormal, sort of worked for a while (although it is semiactive now).
5. What we already have is dysfunctional so, if this works at all, it would be an improvement.

Against:

1. It might well degenerate into a permanent food fight (something like this page) requiring constant administrative intervention. If this happens, it could be eventually MFD'd, but that might take a while.
2. It might turn out to be pointless wiki-process.

What role would I play in such a wikiproject? I would join it, but, in keeping with my wikisloth nature, would likely only just barely participate in it. Cardamon (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Cardamon (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the cl ch t f is somewhat moribund. Anyone wanting to bring such an issue to everyone's attention tends to post to t:GW. Or, nowadays, maybe to here William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the editors who have made appearances here in this enforcement board have been active in the AGW articles for yeras, yet the AGW task force in the environment project doesn't appear to be very organized. As far as I can tell, in four or five years of work only one AGW article - Global warming, is featured and only one other article -DeSmogBlog is GA. Are there more? Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think most of the long-term editors are more concerned with the quality of the article than with formal promotion of them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I remember asking a number of involved editors if they could help out on improving and expanding the Watts Up With That article in unison with me and several others' efforts with DeSmogBlog. I haven't checked Watts Up lately, but I'm looking forward to seeing the level of quality that that article has subsequently attained. With the expertise and experience shared by the editors that are working on it I'm sure that any formal promotion of it will naturally follow. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit apathetic about those blog articles, to be honest. Even if they become as good as possible, there simply is not very much interesting to say about the subject matter. Getting something like Greenhouse effect, Idealized greenhouse model, Urban heat island or History of climate change science up to scratch would be more useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in spite of how boring the topic may be, I see by checking the Watts Up article history that since it was first posted on 10 March 2010, it has received quite a lot of activity in the succeeding two months. The history shows 45 edits by marknutley, 14 by FellGleaming, nine by me, 38 by William M. Connolley, 16 by Short Brigade Harvester Boris, 13 by KimDabelsteinPetersen, 14 by Hipocrite, a good number by JPRW, TonySideaway, TMLutas, Tillman, Dave Souza, and Guettarda, among a few others, plus 12 from you! Of course, all that effort is greatly appreciated. With that amount of activity by so many editors concerned with the quality of articles, I'm sure that article must be almost ready for GA promotion already. Cla68 (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That statistic means the topic is contentious, not interesting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ATren

Lar closed the ATren request with indecent haste. If there were several admins all agreeing it should be closed, that would be fine. But one alone is not acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One alone is perfectly acceptable. It's such a transparently obvious close that there's no reason to waste time on it. ATren will cease being intentionally incivil or he will get progressively banned. That was the only and obvious resolution from the second I filed it to the second it was closed. It should have taken about three seconds. Appeal it through the appropriate channels, if you must, but you are wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, would you agree to retract all your recent incidents of incivility and I will retract mine? ATren (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to retract incivility that you are aware of unless someone else does something, I'll file ATren2 right now. Is my understanding correct? Which incivilities of yours that you are aware of have you not yet retracted? Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead if you like. I am trying to extend an olive branch to WMC, why do you take it as something different? ATren (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Olive branches are phrased like this - "WMC, I'm sorry I was incivil to you. I'm retracting everything I said that was wrong. It would be nice if you'd do the same, and I hope we will be able to work together productively in the future." Tit-for-tat requests for appeasement are phrased like this - "WMC, would you agree to retract all your recent incidents of incivility and I will retract mine?" See, the "Olive Branch" thing is you putting yourself out there, not you asking both parties to do something. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry I don't meet your standard of what an olive branch is. In any case I stand by my offer. ATren (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

H, if you're really concerned about incivility might I suggest you begin with WMC? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cost-benefit analysis suggests that given the limited amount of time I have, I should not only aim for low-hanging fruit, but also only fruit that I'd like to eat. I suggest that one could infer that while I am not a fan of all of WMC's editing, or any of his incivility, I am, in fact, a fan of many of his main-space edits, particularly those that are not about living persons. To be fair I am also a fan of some of Atren's main-space edits, particularly those about living persons that are not the focus of off-wiki pressure groups. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no lower-hanging fruit than WMC when it comes to incivility and policy violations. As for eating only fruit you like, I'm currently expanding the bio of a man I disagree with. It's good for the soul, and it's what Wikipedians are meant to do. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's my obligation as a wikipedian to assist people who are interested in misinforming the public. If WMC weren't editing, articles like Global Warming would be misinforming the public. I try to get him to be more civil and be careful with BLPs in ways that are less likley to make his inarguably good edits to articles about science more likley. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, what do you mean by "particularly those about living persons that are not the focus of off-wiki pressure groups."? ATren (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

[16], [17] and the like. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this closure, if it makes WMC feel better. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! On the other hand if other uninvolved admins decide to undo it, I'm fine with that ahd have no issues with it. I do agree it was done somewhat quickly, but H had a point.... we got about all we were going to get I think. I note that I didn't close it the way H wanted it closed, not exactly. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't lay out a penalty schedule, but it's pretty much implicit anyway. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive indexing and RFC draft

2over0 is drafting an RFC for this Project [18]. A better archive index may help in this effort. Due to the many collapses, the Archives can be difficult to review who filed against whom. Would anyone disagree if I amended the archives to specify the complained and complainer before the close boxes? Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

First pass at Archive 1 [19] Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased

Is it possible to have an editor who is so biased one way that anyone who comes close to them is assumed to be biased the other way? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you been chatting with that Phil O. Soffey again? LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a better time with Lady Justice. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing

HiP is taking it upon himself to collapse sections he doesn't like. In case it isn't obvious, I don't accept HiP as a neutral editor, and ask him to stop doing this. I'm sure the admins watching the page are perfectly capable of doing it themselves, should they wish William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As you noted, (part) collapsing ones "own" section is acceptable in most circumstances. A good faith collapse of a section that is not ones own is permissible, but if reverted should then not be done so again. In this instance HiP collapsed a particular discussion that he was not part of, and you reverted it. Unless either of the two main participants in the discussion wish it collapsed then it should be actioned by them, but otherwise it should now be left as is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'm happy if uninvolved admins collapse (or remove entirely, perhaps to talk, perhaps to the bin) sections that they judge unhelpful or meandering. Indeed, I think it is the duty of admins patrolling the pages to do this (I have, on occaision, bitterly whinged at arbcomm for failing to do its duty) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A collapse by an uninvolved admin is also fine, but might be only undertaken when there is serious issues - a simple action that may otherwise spawn reams of complaint, explanation and opinion, so unlikely to be undertaken for minor issues such as "distracting", etc. No problem with a non admin also collapsing content not involving them as major participants, providing that such actions may be reverted by otherwise similarly uninvolved editors. Most readers will recognise when a specific discussion is going off topic and choose whether they are interested in that diversion or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider this a halfhearted request for a restoration of my two collapses by an uninvolved admin.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe admins should have any more control over this than any other user. Unless it comes to the situation of having to enforce clear consensus. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Admins already have a section to themselves making them more important than other users, against wikipedia principles and this concept is disgusting to me. Admins are here to enforce consensus if need be and nothing more. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I just think I have hit upon the point. Enforcement sets admins up as Judge and Jury. This is utterly against wikipeida principles, where admins should simply enforce consensus. Now the argument that enforcement is some sort of community consensus that allows admins to act as judge and jury (and police) is complete and utter shit Polargeo (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the unfortunate aspects of Wikipedia principles is that they are consensus determined. Cases where the consensus decision is anti consensus cannot easily be resolved whilst Wikipedia has no form of constitution harder to change than by the action of instantaneous consensus. Arbcom has been set up (by community consensus, nearly) for cases where there is no possibility of a solution being reached by simple consensus. The consensus of Arbcom in this case seems to be that there is a need for uninvolved adjudication and that the only suitable adjudicators are uninvolved admins. This is an unsatisfactory situation in lots of ways but the consensus process to overturned it is unlikely to work well if you start off by declaring things to be "shit". Anyway the point is that the macro-consensus of this probation is to over-turn microconsensus which is unworkable. Not my idea but there it is. --BozMo talk 21:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay so what you are saying is that admins are police. All my idealism is out of the window and I should get real and start policing cimate change articles in favour of those who I agree with, as seems to be happening at present. I am utterly disgusted. I admire your actions but not your conclusions. Maybe I will become another Stephan Schulz and act as uninvolved just to balance things out. Polargeo (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Weren't you planning an RfC over this 'probation'? --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The community placed this topic under general sanctions, and explicitly empowered admins to make these decisions. Therefore, admins are enforcing consensus by policing this area, as the community wants them to. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Community did nothing of the sort. A few wikipedia hacks and a few of the people currently arguing with each other on these pages did it. I personally as a semi active editor in this area was not even made aware of sanctions until templates started being slapped on several articles I had on my watchlist. Polargeo (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As for an RfC. I think it should come soon as this probation is turning out to be a joke. Polargeo (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd support it, and help you with it if you wanted.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

re Sandstein's comment regarding the value of threaded admin discussion

I realise that AGK also commented, but Sandstein incorporated that into their post. To avoid the dreaded threaded discussion, and to permit non-"uninvolved admins" to comment, I have opened a discussion here.
My response to Sandstein's main point, that Requests for enforcement was set up to allow the first uninvolved admin to action the request in the manner they thought appropriate, was, "It evolved, necessarily". I can well imagine that there are editors involved in CC related articles that would prefer that I was not the sole arbiter of a complaint brought by or against them, that other contributors are likewise disinclined to have a Request involving them solely adminned by certain individuals, and there was/is a historical perception that editors were treated differently according to their viewpoint regarding the validity of AGW. It was found that by enlarging the number of admins reviewing a case, and discussing where their conclusions differed, that not only would a consensus arise between those admins but the other parties could see how actions were arrived at. Further, it meant that admins reviewing a new case were aware of how consensus had dealt with similar matters and could suggest proposals that were consistent with those decisions, or proposals that dealt with perceived deficiencies of previous conclusions. Lastly, it meant with that enforcement actions handled by one admin following a decision were taken as being supported by all participating admins and the potential of another admin reversing it extinguished.
That last is why I think the admin only section is required, so that there is a clear collective responsibility for the conclusion of a case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I think we should be very leery of (in this particular enforcement) going to a "first on the scene" system of enforcement. We have a system that works, sort of. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is apparent that you are all misunderstanding what I'm saying. You can certainly reach a consensus amongst yourselves about what sanction is necessary. You are directed not to have a discussion amongst yourselves about the facts of the case. "I think he should be blocked for five months." "No, three months." "Four months?" "Done!" is fine. "Hipocrite is a hothead." "Could you show some diffs showing he's a hothead?" "Here are some diffs." "Thanks!" is not admin-only discussion, and should be conducted where other people can interject without feeling the need to ""comment in admins section so admins see before closing". Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"You are directed" ?? Er, ok... But no. I think it's likely we'll keep on with what seems to work well. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"works well"? Can you please let me know what kind of evaluation criteria you use or what you are having? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Experiential rather than specific criteria. And I refer to the discussion itself rather than the entire enforcement regime. However you may be right, I note that many folk seem to still be up to the same mischief they were before this all started. A nice orderly discussion doesn't quite make up for that, does it? Perhaps we should try it your way. As always I will defer to the consensus (in this case, of the uninvolved admins, which I note does not by any stretch of the imagination include you) should it change. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Experimental rather than specific criteria"? Sorry, that does not make sense to me. Do you mean "I did an experiment and the result felt good"? And, as before,ceterum censeo you are not uninvolved. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Experiential not experiemental. So, no that's not what I meant at all. Regarding your postscript, as before, I am uninvolved, you are not. Regardless of how many times you repeat yourself. You have no standing to comment further, as far as I am concerned. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It may more be the case of "What shall we do about Hipocrites hot-headed comments here?" "Nothing, he was just being a little passionate." "I say ban him forever and blank his Userpage!" "Um, why not just ask him to put his comments in more dispassionate terms?" "Okay, that seems reasonable.", "No! Ban him, blank his userpage, and go through all his contributions and see if we should revert the lot!!!" "Er, not this time, Less, I think an admonishment will be the right response..." - sometimes there is debate between sysops whether a case has been made, and then whether there is a need to sanction as regards the circumstances. I do agree with a developing view that we should try and move to a quicker consensus, and less musing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree fully with Lar's comment regarding the "first on the scene" approach. I have never undertaken my work at AE in such a way, although I realise that in doing so I am at odds with some of my colleagues. As with most Wikipedia decisions, an element of consensus-building ought to be present in AE discussions (if not because that's the "Wiki Way™" then certainly as a sanity check). Ultimately one sysop will have to proceed to action the complaint one way or another, but setting some time aside for reasoned discussion is in all cases beneficial.

  With respect to Hypocrite's point that we should not debate the facts of the complaint, I agree. Where the facts are ambiguous or misunderstood, requesting clarification must be an option. So long as that can happen, I don't much care who supplies (to answer your hypothetical) the diffs illustrating that Hipocrite is a hothead. The danger of allowing involved parties to supply those diffs in the section reserved for "uninvolved users" is that they may dilute the usefulness of the discussion there (as those with a vested interest are inclined to do). But should that happen, a sysop can always simply move their comments back up to the statement reserved for the parties' statements. Dictating precisely where everybody may comment, with no latitude afforded either way, strikes me as instruction creep. I always did prefer open, fluid discussions, and Hipocrite is right to criticise anything that appears to be a movement away from that.

  In reply to LHvU: I'm a muser by nature, so I'm less inclined than most to action a complex thread immediately without at least some detailed examination and in most cases some time for comment by uninvolved users. But unnecessary delay is a bad thing, so you might be right. Again, I hesitate at subscribing to set philosophies here: there is so much scope for variety in an AE thread. AGK 18:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo

I don't know if a formal request is warranted, but perhaps the uninvolved admins might consider banning Polargeo from the enforcement page? He is now littering the uninvolved admin section of WMC's request with repeated inflammatory comments attacking other admins and using sarcasm involving the antichrist. Is this really helpful? Marknutley was banned for several months for simply raising a complaint; Polargeo has filed a pointy request against himself and has repeatedly jumped back and forth between "I'm an editor commenting on the merits now!" and "I'm an uninvolved admin now!" He has also expressed repeatedly that he does not believe this CC enforcement page should remain in existence, so it calls into question his motives in his pointy requests and flip-flopping between admin and editor. This is much more disruptive than anything Marknutley did, perhaps a ban for Polargeo should be considered? Note that many of the points Polargeo is making are already being made in much less inflammatory terms by others (i.e. Hipocrite, Boris, Stephan) so his absence will not create an imbalance of opinion. ATren (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that. Polargeo's comments in the admin section do not appear to be very helpful in assisting the uninvolved admins in reaching a decision. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with all the points in ATren's characterization (especially calling his motives into question), but essentially concur on the broader issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would be helpful to keep the posts on that page constructive. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur as well. Polargeo's been making a string if pointy, timewasting, uncivil, distracting comments. Perhaps this should be moved to the project page as a formal complaint. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have said this elsewhere already. I agree with the sense of this. ObDisclose: P and WMC were the coinitiators of the RfC, with the stated goal of getting me eased out of working in this area but I don't think that has unduly influenced my perception of Polargeo as being disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a plainly wrong statement - ontologically, the RfC is not trying to do anything, being a social construct without an independent will, and substantially, no, no-one wants to get you "eased out of working in this area". The aim of the RfC is to get you to recognize (if necessary) and acknowledge that you are not uninvolved, but came to the arena with a massive predetermined bias, not to mention that you use a very double standard for when to appeal to policy, when to common sense, when to tradition, and when to just claim The Truth. Claiming uninvolvement is in no way a prerequisite to working in this area. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Restated the first part, as it was malformed, RfCs have no independent volition. Thanks for calling me on that, although you are all wet with all the rest of your commentary, I'm afraid, Side issue though, the point being that Polargeo is disruptive. Don't get sidetracked. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am on a general wikibreak but wish to make a brief comment. I initiated that RfC to question Lar's involvement as uninvolved with WMC. I did not know that WMC would come in and "co - initiate" it. I did not know what other editors would do. Therefore I have had no coordination with WMC except on a formal wikipedia level, just as Lar does. I have had only fairly minor contact with WMC on-wiki. I certainly did not call WMC a "wacko" on his talkpage as Lar did before these sanctions even started. I genuinely believe myself to be as uninvolved as Lar is on this. I really genuinely believe that. Polargeo (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You have misread this section and have again taken the opportunity to drive home a tangential point. Please reread the text here. Incidentally, and if it isn't already clear, I 'third' or 'fourth' or 'whatever' the present proposal.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is the talk page,and not (yet) a formal request for sanctions, but it appears to me, procedurally, that jumping to a proposal for a ban before even trying a polite”Hey, can you dial it back a little?” is getting ahead of ourselves.SPhilbrickT 12:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's been tried already. I can dig up some cites if it's really needed. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's far beyond ”Hey, can you dial it back a little?” "general wikibreak" sounds like a very prudent step. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "minor involvement" - The intersection tool shows 8 AfDs in the Climate Change category in common, as well as 50 user talk pages in common. 35 articles in common, almost all of which are clearly in the same area. Presented as data only. Collect (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As an editor I occasionally, but do not primarily edit climate change articles. How do I avoid having some article overlap with WMC? As for the talkpage crossover. Lar has a 220 user talkpages in common with WMC. These sort of statistics are of little value. Polargeo (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I got my adminship mostly through my work in AfD. Also of the 8 AfDs we have in common I didn't !vote the same way as WMC on 3 of them. Two of the other 5 were nominated by me. It is hardly like I am following WMC around mindlessly backing up his position. Polargeo (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that I have dialled back considerably. Anyway I'm back on wikibreak now. I just wanted to defend myself on this talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I count you as agreeing with WMC on 6 of the 8, quibbling with him on procedures (whether articles by country are encyclopedic or not) on 2. I found zero cases where you showed any substantive disagreement wth WMC on any of the 8 AfDs. And again, the material is furnished as data only, not any sort of accusation. Meanwhile, I would suggest that every time I have seen an RfC/U with one user devoting well over 150 edits to the topic, the person has gotten far too emotionally involved. The purpose of an RfC/U is to gain comments from others, not to iterate the complainant's views. I daresay most people reading the RfC/U already know how you feel <g>. Collect (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not completely fair. I started the RfC/U and so needed a certain number of edits, also to agree with the comments of others. All of my edits on the main page of the RfC/U are very balanced and unemotional. Most of my edits which you are counting have been on the RfC/U talkpage where okay I got a little annoyed at times but a substantial amount of this was dealing with your own 30 edits presenting wikistalk data that was trying to tie various editors together, including myself, as some sort of a cabal, similar to what you have presented here. Polargeo (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Kindly redact your accusation. At no time did I state "cabal" about any group at all. Nor did I use any term other than "data" to describe what I have presented here. Meanhile, 170 edits > 30. Outediting others by a factor of more than four is evidence enough that you have somehow become so emotionally entangled here that you are unwilling to let outsiders (such as myself) have reasonable say (which, funny enough, is the purpose of an RfC/U). Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that you personally stated "cabal" did I? Also most of my edits have been on the talkpage not on the mainpage. "Outsiders" have been commenting quite properly and happily on the RfC/U mainpage with me simply endorsing their comments or not as the case may be. I did not realise that as initiator of the RfC I was restricted from defending myself on the talkpage when people were trying to show I was part of a group and to therefore discredit my motives. Polargeo (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo: In general your participation in the RE page, and in the RfC, has been manifestly unhelpful. That said, one of the reasons you have a high edit count in general is that you often take 5 edits to say what could be said in 1. Preview is your friend, as is composing your thoughts offline to make sure you say everything you want to say at one go instead of tacking five postscripts on. I'm guilty of this too, mind, although I don't think quite as much as you... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well seeing as the majority of my participation in those two pages has been to criticise you I am not surprised that you find it unhelpful. As you seem to be managing to talk several people round to a long article ban for WMC based on his rational edits and a bunch of long past history I can only take my hat off to you. You are a true operator. If I wasn't so clumsy and inexperienced compared to you I do believe that my rational arguments would carry more weight. I look forward to learning more from a master. Polargeo (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh stop... flattery will get you nowhere. Nor will baiting. (at least so I try) But one does wonder... if the majority of your participation has been to criticize me, how are you helping the broader issue? We get that you don't think these sanctions are a good idea, yes. But do stop trying to obstruct, would you? ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Involved/uninvolved

There have been disputes about the "uninvolved" admin "Result" section on the Requests for enforcement page. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Stephan_Schulz.E2.80.8E_.26_Lar. It appears the definition of uninvolved given on the probation page:

• For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).

is at variance with definitions used by various admins on this page. Uninvolved is clearly defined on the probation page. If users here disagree with that definition - then seek consensus to change it. Meanwhile, it is the "definition" of uninvolved for this page. Vsmith (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Therefore I am uninvolved in the dispute regarding WMC as I have never edited Fred Singer (article or talkpage). I am no more involved than Lar regarding the current RfC. I disagree that an admin should never have edited a climate change article to be uninvolved. This is an extreme view that is designed by a few people here and its primary purpose appears to be to keep certain admins away. Although it is enforced by Lar (moving my comments for example) it is not supported by any wikipedia policy. Polargeo (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

However, I accept Lar's move of my comments appears to have consensus amougst other admins here. Nobody has really criticised him. Therefore I respect the verdict. Polargeo (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So then, you are involved, and I am not, by consensus? Would it be time to fold up the RfC as a bad job? To go along with what ArbCom members have said several times now? Or no? ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I said there was a "consensus amoungst the admins here" (mostly I interpret this by their silence on the matter) not to disagree with your move of my comments. I see no point in fighting this here as you appear to be gaining an upper hand in CC enforcement through shear persistence rather than from reasonable arguments. For this very reason I think there is now even more need to keep the RfC open for the full duration. Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Errm, isn't it obvious that there is a massive problem with not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions? It means that someone who makes edits directly in support of mine is not "involved"; only someone editing against me is "involved" with me. That seems to me to be wrong. However, in the past Lar has leant very heavily on the letter of the defn of involved rather than the spirit. Use of this defn (which appears to be the operative one) means that Lar's move of Stephan's comment [20] was an error: I am not invovled in a current, direct, personal conflict with Stephan William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I'll go with what ArbCom members have opined several times already, when asked... Stephan Schulz is involved in this topic area and all enforcement actions. Generally. Across the board. I'm not. Generally. Across the board. Unless you can bait me into losing my temper enough times, I guess. Keep trying. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should seek to change the definition of "involved/uninvolved" quoted above from this probation. I and others should be open to discussion about such a re-definition or a clarification of "uninvolved" for this probation. And further stop applying a different "definition" while that definition remains as stated and in effect. Vsmith (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy is what we do, and the writing catches up as it can. If most everyone with standing seems to agree on a definition in practice, that's good enough. You can change the writing though, if you like. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, this won't do, because you have in the past relied so very heavily on the letter of your version. Unless you're arguing that since you've got away with it so long, we're now obliged t change the policy to fit whatever you do? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a correct assessment on your part. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That seems a rather absurd statement - especially as some "in good standing" obviously don't agree and are basing their comments and actions on what is written as policy. Or are you implying that no one who disagrees with you can be "in good standing"? We change policy by consensus and discussion - not by individual whim. So where is this consensus discussion regarding the definition concerned? Or is the definition as written back in January in error and no one "in good standing" pays it any attention? Vsmith (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I said with standing, in other words, the uninvolved admins have been deciding who's uninvolved. Which decisions ArbCom members among others have been endorsing. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, sorry 'bout the "standing" confusion. I guess only those with this magical "standing" bit are allowed to make up policy on the wing and those who aren't "standing" must go by what is written as policy. And nice that I "can change the writing though, if you like." Vsmith (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The cited definition makes sense in the context of individual admins taking action on their own, which in my understanding is generally what these sanctions empower. It just doesn't make sense on this board. If Stephan wanted to unilaterally block WMC, I think the point is that he could do so as long as he wasn't in conflict with WMC. The problem is that on this board where admins are trying to get consensus, it's obviously disruptive if an admin who is involved in the general sense jumps in the way. So perhaps that should be clarified, but maybe it's also common sense that discussion set aside for uninvolved admins should use the standard definition of involvement, and not the one for applying sanctions, since otherwise this board couldn't be used. Mackan79 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That leads to a rather hilarious conundrum - Stephan blocks WMC as uninvolved, but Stephan cannot announce that block on "this board" because he is involved per a different "definition". This highlights the need for a consistent definition. Vsmith (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably true that the specific definition where Stephan could block WMC doesn't make much sense in light of this board. I think he could still announce it here, though the awkward point would be whether he could defend it in the uninvolved section (or then change his mind?). But I'd say it's hardly more sensible to have an admin here promoting his personal position in a dispute, claiming to be "uninvolved," criticizing opponents in the same dispute who then can't respond, or saying that the person reverting with him really deserves the benefit of the doubt. Admins aren't supposed to user their status under that conflict of interests; I think one has to presume the probation simply didn't consider how it would play out on this board. Mackan79 (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation?

I draw your attention to this edit Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation [21] by Cenarium. This seems to me to be a good principle. Discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What is past is prologue. Searching for patterns and behavioral styles can go back further, yes, but the sanctions should be based on actions after the start of the probation. Why do you ask? Do you think there's been marked improvement in your behavior since the start of the probation? ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Current actions are different from past enforcement history, the former is material to bring cause, the latter is referable. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Per my 'If we block for historical bad edits, where is the incentive for an editor to contribute in a policy compliant way now?' rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Numerous diffs brought up during the FS case were from before the probation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To evidence an allegation of continuing issues - which in part is why I feel your withdrawal from the article is appropriate - with the same subject. You get sanctioned, or not, for returning in an alleged non appropriate manner to an area where you have previously been seen as having issues, not for those historic issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. TW certainly disagrees; his close is based on pre-probation diffs. Much of the discussion around this RFE was based on pre-probation diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

An analogy; person X is believed to have vandalised Z car previously, and there are some disputed eyewitness accounts of same. The case does not proceed because of lack of reliable evidence. Should person X then be found to have subsequently to have caused some minor damage to Z car, the excuse of "I only kicked the tyres a little" does not suffice for a penalty not be applied. The apparent subsequent behaviour indicates that there may have been substance to the earlier issues, and that that problem still exists. It is, however, wrong to penalise person X for the broken headlight that happened previously. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) WMC, there were three groups of edits which concerned me: (1) the Martian edits from 2008, (2) the critical material sourced to RealClimate (2009), and (3) the addition of a link to a personal website which contained personal information on Singer (2009). As you say, these were all from before the probation, but it was never clear to me whether you considered them to be inappropriate (then or now). And if you don't consider them inappropriate, my concern is that you might do it again. So in the spirit of moving forward, perhaps you can acknowledge that you recognize the problem with those edits, and commit to avoiding such edits in the future. And in that case I will have no objection to you further editing Singer or any BLP. ATren (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This really seems the crux. We want better editing going forward. The edits in the past are deficient. Regardless of whether the more recent edits are or not. The questions are to WMC: Do you agree with the generally accepted view that the edits are deficient? Do you think your editing in this area will no longer be deficient in the way those were? Do you understand and accept that others have concerns, and accept the validity of them? That's the heart of the matter, not sparring and faffing about. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you right now that #2 isn't (RC is an RS on non-BLP material, and the material was non-BLP) and #3 wasn't discovered until very recently despite that a multitude of editors of opposing viewpoints have seen it. #1 is very much debatable - its a context issue - there is no doubt that Singer at the time expressed that Mars might be artificial, and there is also no doubt that the article at no point in its history has stated that "Singer believes in martians" (no matter how formulated). #1 is not a BLP issue - but may be a due weight one. You will have to explain how they are deficient in specifics here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we please discuss of WMC or any editor, edits, etc on the RFE page itself, to avoid splitting discussions and because it's where it should be discussed. With respect to this procedural point, I think it's a direct corollary of the probation terms (2nd point) "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;...", it follows under basic due process that edits made before the beginning of the probation can't be hold against a user as basis for a sanction since the warning could not have been given before those edits. See also non-retroactivity. Cenarium (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have WMC answer the questions asked. Here or on the main page, as he finds convenient. I am less happy to have KDP running interference. To be clear, I'm not saying WMC is sanctionable for edits made before the probation started. I merely want to know if he understands that many folk find his edits of Singer (in general) deficient, and if he agrees, and if he thinks he is doing better now, or about the same, or worse, or what. KDP's smokescreens notwithstanding, that's the crux. ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'm rather unamused by the assumptions of bad faith expressed both here, on Lar's talkpage and on the main page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have WMC answer the questions asked - I think it is regrettable that Lar, and ATren, are seeking repeatedly to derail this discussion. The question here is, "do edits before the probation count", not "are there any edits before the probation you'd like explained". If yuo'd like the second question answered, start you own section William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

An entire section is not necessary, it's been asked of you in the "Request for revert of The Wordsmith's close of case "William M. Connolley" section on the project page. You can answer there. Until you do answer, completely and without evasion or prevarication, I oppose revision of the sanction in question. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes, edits before the probation period count, but not so much that they count all on their own. By that I mean the probation didn't give any editor who had a persistent problem a clean slate. If an editor makes a mistake, ok, correct the editor. But if it is the tenth time and it just so happens that the other nine times were before probation started, then that would be evidence of a pattern, rather than a one-off mistake, and those two different motivations should be treated differently.

So as supporting evidence to show a repeated pattern I think old edits/blocks/warnings/whatevers can be useful, but only to support a current complaint, and only to show an ongoing problem of the kind the current complaint is about. I would take the wording of the probation to mean that no action should be taken solely on anything done before probation was enacted, but I don't think it helps to ignore evidence of a repeated problem, if one exists. Weakopedia (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Applied to the current situation: None of the edits after the probation started are remotely sanctionable, or even remarkable. They are sign of normal editing. WMC actually offered discussion on the talk page. There is no reason for a sanction. I have trouble even understanding why SV made the request, unless we have a failure of WP:AGF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That view is not universally held. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming to reply to me, which parts? None of the edits after the probation started are remotely sanctionable(1), or even remarkable(2). They are sign of normal editing(3). WMC actually offered discussion on the talk page(4). There is no reason for a sanction(5). I have trouble(6) even understanding why SV made the request(7), unless we have a failure of WP:AGF(8). List all that apply. Feel free to expand in case I forgot something. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, NuclearWarfare, The Wordsmith, Polargeo

(Moved from the requests page to this talk page. NW (Talk) 18:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC) )

The admin section of the templated sanctions request is not for threaded discussion. While I'm content to allow Lar to stagnate the above request with his reversion, in the future if any of you disregard the purpose of the admin section and engage in threaded discussion amongst yourselves, I will seek to have the lot of you prevented from using your tools in this area - admins do not have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The way we've gotten to results in the past is by discussion, amongst the uninvolved admins, of what a good approach would be. Your moving the threads was unwarranted, which is why I reverted it. I suggest we take this to the talk page and hash it out further. Feel free to move this entire section there. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The uninvolved admins should feel free to discuss with the plebians. This will resolve the problem of you lot deciding which of you lot is involved vs. uninvolved. It will also resolve the problem of you lot thinking you have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The current section intro indeed says "Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above". On basic Wikipedia principles (adminship is no big deal), Hipocrite's action is actually well founded. Of course, for "getting results" it may be inconvenient to actually interact with more editors. Ceterum censeo, Lar has not been involved in any discussion among uninvolved admin during this probation, although he probably has been involved in a discussion with uninvolved admins. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no magic discussion powers. I would sooner chew my own foot off than comment on sanctions. However, I just cannot stand by and watch biased admins wade in to level the playing field in their own image. Polargeo (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please respect WP:NPA and WP:AGF. The RfC you opened on this topic has so far not favored your interpretation of Lar's behavior. It would probably help if you stopped plastering this page with slanderlibel. It doesn't come across well, contrary to your best intentions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole (e.g., "slander") isn't helpful either. and besides, it would be libel because it's in a fixed medium instead of spoken. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Slander'Libel' is not hyperbole. Sorry, I occasionally confuse project pages with talkpages. --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Stephan and Hipocrite, that section says it is not for discussion. Admins should be reacting to consensus, not establishing it amongst themselves. Weakopedia (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The admin only section should not even exist. Nor should CC sanctions. Polargeo (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy with this, as I have seen both methods used at WP:AE. On the one hand, Hipocrite is indeed correct that administrators should not have any "magic discussion powers" on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the reason that probation and discretionary sanction boards were implemented in the first place was to allow for arbitration in areas where it is not possible to establish an agreement between all parties. I shall think on this further, and refrain from commenting in the admin-only section in the meantime. NW (Talk) 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How are the admins supposed to reach a group decision if they don't discuss it amongst themselves? Would you rather they did it by email? If we want to comment on something they say in the admin-only area, we can leave a comment on each admin's respective user talk page. This is the format that we have chosen and if we respect the rules (yes Polargeo and Stephan Schulz, I'm talking to you) things should continue to operate effectively with this enforcement board. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since "the rules" explicitly state that the admin response section is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate it's not altogether cleaer what point you are making. The wording of the no-discussion-and-debate proviso is meant to apply to admins because the next section says Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above, i.e., it calls out "discussion and debate" separately from "comments by non-admins" (emphasis added for clarity). You can argue that the rules should be changed, and I can see some merit in doing that. But to chide other editors about "respecting rules" when you appear to misunderstand those rules yourself is inappropriate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The rules I'm referring to relate to involved/uninvolved admins participating in the admin-only area. I think we're interpreting the rules differently. I interpret those rules to mean that the area is not for discussion or debate among non-admins or involved admins like Stephan or Polargeo. Again, the system that has evolved seems to be working fine so far. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the key sentence (from Weakopedia) is Admins should be reacting to consensus, not establishing it amongst themselves. Your interpretation, to put it bluntly, is not compatible with the text. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys are rules lawyering. Policy is what we do (at a page), not what it says. What we do is we have a section where uninvolved admins discuss amongst themselves. They are influenced by the discussion in other sections, or should be. If the writing of how things are done here doesn't quite match what we do, we fix it. That's how things work here. Stop rules lawyering, it's not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Given your insistence on a narrow, technical definition of "uninvolved" I see more than a little irony in your objecting to rules lawyering. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My insistence is merely to go with what the other uninvolved admins have said, that I'm not involved. Regardless of how much you spin it, you can't avoid that. You're involved. I'm not. Deal. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I take that that you sanction my posting in the admin section now, since that's "how we do things"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Your attempts to post in various uninvolved admin sections have been reverted, multiple times, and no uninvolved admin has undone that reversion. So it's not "how we do things". How we do things is to remove your postings there. Because you are not uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It seems that everyone is very focused on the wording of the intro sentence. In order to avoid "wining" this debate unfairly, it should be noted that I changed that wording without objection on May 6 perWikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation#Note_re_template. Individuals whose arguments are based only on the revised wording in the template should strongly consider if they support the revised wording - I based my revision on the fact that admins lack magic discussing powers, and that the constant back-and-forth in the admin section has hobbled this page (in the case directly above that has led to my ire, if not for grandstanding about who could type what where, a sanction against WMC would have already have been passed by almost unanamous consent - consent which I would have joined, even if the twin evils of Polargeo and Steven were permitted to write in the admins only section) Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the wording, again, to clarify how things are actually done, which should sort this. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Intresting. Do you think that editing a template that stood for almost 14 days after an edit and a talk page announcement about that to win a debate here is really a deal-ender? I would argue it's not. See, unlike my edit, which was well publicized and apparently non-controvercial, your edit was done by what one might term an "involved" party - in that it's your name up at the top of this section, but, hey, I'm just a plebian - perhaps you should full-protect the template in the version you think is right, just to shove it in our plebian faces. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your rhetoric is noted. However, as I said, we change policy writings to match what we actually do. Do you dispute that in the many enforcement requests to date there has been considerable back and forth discussion between uninvolved admins in the uninvolved admin section on the way to arriving at consensus? If you don't dispute it, it was a good edit. If you do, then please provide some proof. Because you're ruleslawyering and that's not helpful. I am at a loss as to why you do this. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that local "consensus" (which obviously dosen't exist, given the above) that admins have magic discussion powers does not override policy that admins don't have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure? The uninvolved admins have been doing things this way for some time. If you want to change it, this isn't the way. Convince the rest of us. You're not an uninvolved admin, and no one else commenting here, save NW and myself, are either. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As the subjects of the requests, niether you nor NW are uninvolved. Further, admins do not have magic powers of discussion, and I alledge other than the frequent violators, I have convinced everyone else. Find me someone who thinks the admin-only back-and-forth is valuable, as opposed to convincing some of you to grow a pair and start actually closing things. Go on, I'll wait. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"As the subjects of the requests, niether you nor NW are uninvolved" ... oh that makes my head spin, it's so sophistic. Yes, technically, since we are discussing uninvolved admins, no uninvolved admin is uninvolved when the topic is uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins are those who do not engage in admin-only segregated discussion. Off the top of my head, I can think of 1,700 of them. Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A novel definition, but an incorrect one. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How so, exactly? The question on the table is "enagaging in admin-only segregated discussion - unwiki?" You're asking that the question be decided only by people engaging in admin-only segregated discussion, as opposed to everyone? Why do you think admins have special powers to decide that they can engage in admin-only segregated discussion? When the probation was created by community (not admin-only) consensus, was there a discussion about having admin-only segregated discussion that I missed? Perhaps you could point it out to me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense. How do you expect us to decide on a sanction (or lack thereof) if we can't discuss it without the conversation being polluted by mountains of crap? It has been this way for a long time, which makes it a de facto consensus (see WP:SILENCE). The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You can discuss anything you want to, including the proposed sanctions, up in the plebian sections. You can write your proposed sanctions in the admin only section. Another thing that was this way for a long time which makes it a de facto consensus is that admins do not have any special abilities other than buttons - that broader consensus overrides the local false "consensus," that obviously dosen't exist here - from the essay you just linked it seems pretty obvious to me that there is not even a majority of users who support admin-only discussion sections. Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems entirely appropriate - discussion in the discussion section, only proposed sanctions or results in the admin section. If the probation can't get everyone talking and making consensus decisions then they were ill founded. Admins should be participating in that, not trying to limit it or holding themselves aloof from it. Weakopedia (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to distract from this section, but I am unsure why I am named in this section. I do not appear to have engaged in threaded discussion in the above complaint. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you concurred with another uninvolved admin (which is a response, apparently) and then had the audacity to actually respond to a request by yet another uninvolved admin... what's more, you responded by elaborating the reasons for why you concurred!!! CLEARLY that was way out of line. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You engaged in threaded discussion above - "I was asked to expand upon my viewpoint by NuclearWarfare above, so I will do so here..." You could have expanded in your initial comment (acceptable), or in the plebian section (preferred). Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated use of hyperbole is noted. Barring a serious time travel accident, I doubt there are many Roman citizens editing Wikipedia, and certainly not enough that we need an entire section for them. Therefore, we should eliminate the "Plebian" section entirely. In addition, your assertion that we believe that we have "magic discussion powers" is faulty. The ability with which we have our conversation is well-grounded in science, particularly the fields of computer mechanics and software programming. I request that you cease using these inaccurate phrases. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here, but you should be aware that I have a substantial case of dyslexia that makes it very difficult for me to imagine that plebeian and plebian are different, let alone write one when I want to write the other, or vice-versa. I try to remember to put substantial effort into my main page postings to make sure that the spelling is correct - I will not do so on talk pages. Sorry that my poor spelling distracted you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that they are actually alternate spellings of the same thing, that the both refer to the Roman citizens whom were not of the nobility (both redirect to the same article on WP). It wasn't meant to be a jab at your spelling. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

[22] - "Of or pertaining to the common people; vulgar; common; as plebeian sports." Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I was unaware that it was in current usage. I know it comes from the Roman citizenry, of whom many could actually become prestigious. I guess I learn something new every day. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See Plebs#Modern_usage. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What a lot of silly nonsense. As I was asked to comment, my opinion is this: the section should be for discussion between uninvolved editors. Non-administrators permitted; threaded discussion and direct replies permitted; those with a vested interest or a prior involvement prohibited; and bickering or pointless comments prohibited. In my experience that is how things are done, and the template should of course reflect the status quo. AGK 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, silly nonsense is incorrect. There is already a section for discussion between uninvolved editors. This is about the section that is being used for discussion between administrators. Changing that section to allow discussion between editors would mean having two identical sections, repetitive and not needed. Silly nonsense, to coin a phrase. Weakopedia (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What I find silly nonsense is the ferocity with which debate on this topic is being pursued. Some perspective and cooling down is needed. AGK 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"the section that is being used for discussion between administrators" – Do you mean the 'result concerning [subject]' section? Oh, well that really shouldn't be used for discussion unless it is a formal proposal by one administrator of one course of action or another. For instance, I usually give my preliminary thoughts in the main discussion section (for uninvolved editors), and solicit the input of other uninvolved people. When the parties' statements are all in, I'll propose, for example, "Topic ban X for 3 months; topic ban Y for 1 month; and place Z on final warning" in the 'results' section. If there are no objections from the other uninvolved parties, I'll action the request in that way.

I don't think there is a need for much rigidity with respect to which sections uninvolved editors and administrators can comment in. I think excluding involved people from the "results" and "uninvolved editor discussion" sections is wise to simply avoid too much heat and noise; if they have a comment to make, they can do so in the section devoted to their statement. But otherwise I don't care much either way. Ultimately we should manipulate the layout of the discussion in whatever way produces the best results. AGK 11:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely on how that section should be used, thanks for the clarification. Weakopedia (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been asked to comment on this entry, but I have no opinions hereon. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• I too have been asked to comment, and like AGK find this debate silly. Please keep in mind that the purpose of this board (like AE) is to request action from uninvolved administrators. That action is discretionary, and therefore requires no consensus. The purpose of this board, then, is not to generate community consensus, but only to convince one single person that they should act. Consequently, there is no need to provide for a framework for threaded discussion at all. Everybody who thinks they have something useful to say should make a single statement and then shut the hell up. Uninvolved admins will read all statements, and will then decide whether to act on the request or not. Moreover, uninvolved admins, as the people at who these requests are directed, should take all steps necessary to keep the request manageable for themselves, e.g. by removing unhelpful comments or, if need be, unhelpful editors, from the page. If there is any disagreement about the uninvolved status of an admin so acting, that should be made the subject of an appeal to WP:ANI, as I believe is provided for in the community sanction.  Sandstein  21:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It evolved, necessarily. Since this is off topic, I shall take it to talk. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, the terms of the probation say that "Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.".

It is not just about convincing one uninvolved administrator to act on their own, it is about trying to establish a community consensus that one uninvolved administrator can act upon.

Your system would mean a bunch of editors adding a comment and moving on, the administrator evaluating all of that and then deciding on which sanction to impose. However if the administrator acted against consensus, then community consensus is all that is needed to reverse their decision. Therefore it is important that the uninvolved administrators are sure there is consensus to begin with, and that is not decided by one uninvolved admin reading a bunch of one-off comments, it is done by interaction and conversation amongst the community.

And what would be the point of your system? Your system doesn't help foster discussion amongst the various parties, it just imposes sanctions. A year from now there will be a list of sanctioned editors, and there will be no more discussion than there was before the sanctions started. But the sanctions aren't intended to be a permanent regulatory framework, they are meant to last only as long as they are needed, and for that you need goals.

The idea should be that discussion on the probation page shows consensus for an uninvolved admin to act, or that the admin can evaluate the whole scenario in such a way as to reasonably infer that their actions would meet a broader community consensus, even if there is no consensus formed on the probation page. But the mechanism of at least trying to establish consensus first isn't voided by the wording of the sanction.

By engaging the participants in discussion you have a chance of establishing civil communication between editors, which is what we need to allow contribution to CC articles. That also means that uninvolved admins need to address the community directly - by engaging in threaded discussion in the admin only section it limits the ability of the community to respond directly to their points.

The probation isn't punitive, it is meant to improve CC articles. Your method means simply sanctioning people til the only ones left are those who will edit entirely within the rules. The other method (and I would say the one the we have been using) is to foster discussion between the various parties, even if that is sometimes futile, in order that some day we can have the discussion part without needing the framework of probation to impose it, and all editors can learn to abide by the rules we have. Weakopedia (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Two other important points - the first is that not everyone who comments on the probation page is an involved editor - disallowing discussion disables concerned and uninvolved editors from contributing to the consensus building process and effectively shuts out the entire community save for the lone uninvolved admin. Which is point two, that until a wider interest is shown amongst administrators towards this probation it would be wrong to put the entire responsibility for establishing community consensus on the small group af administrators who do participate - especially when that group have at times, including in some very recent requests, had rather vocal opinions about each others status as involved or uninvolved. Weakopedia (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weakopedia's analysis of why Sandstein's view would result in an unworkable system. What we have now at least sort of works. It may be (to paraphrase WC) the worst possible system, except for all the rest, but it does at least sort of work, and most of the enforcements get closed (and stay that way at least in part because consensus was arrived at first). If the narrative at the top is wrong, it should be changed to reflect how things are done. (and changed again if how things are done changes) ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

IS Polargeo involved or uninvolved?

We uninvolved admins have consistently in the past moved Polargeo's comments out of the uninvolved admin section. Things seem to have come to a head today. I'd like to hear from other uninvolved admins about whether they feel their perception of Polargeo has somehow changed. Quick reviews of his contribs show lots of edits in the topic area. Not as many as some, but quite a few. This fits the ArbCom definition of involvement. Comments? ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You have moved my comments twice. I have asked for clarification at the RfC. This page is not the forum for making this decision as much as you may wish this to be the case. Ultimately arbcom will make a ruling on this that will not be based on your personal interpretation of previous arbcom rulings on very different areas of wikipedia. I will as always respect that ruling when it comes. Polargeo (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

But you won't accept their opinions, even if they are pretty clear cut and overwhelmingly one way, short of an actual ruling? Interesting that you're insisting on a ruling. Be careful what you wish for. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your anger. If it is ruled that I should not act as uninvolved I will respect that even though I think it wrong, I am not worried about that at all. Ultimately the strength of wikipedia should be the consideration. I have a clear conscience that I have never acted in a biased way trying to push content but I consider that you have. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo - the issue isn't "involved" or "uninvolved" in a technical sense. It doesn't matter. Once you have been drawn into the debate, it's time to stop acting as an "uninvolved admin". It's not about who can Wikilawyer the best. It's about stepping aside if your actions are doing more to fan the flames than to calm them. Obviously Lar and LHvU should have moved on long ago. But it doesn't help for you to also engage in bad behaviour, just because others are. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If you actually look at my uninvolved comments which were moved by Lar they were calm conciliatory and placid even though the case was against an editor who Lar may be considered to support. For the sake of peace I would happily not make these sort of calm balanced comments if I saw that other admins were making them and that enforcement was in any way balanced and sensible, unfortunately it is not because battle entrenched admins such as Lar appear to bea ruling the roost. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments about that request were calm and concilatory and helpful. They just were in the wrong place, because you are not an uninvolved admin. Comments such as "battle entrenched " and "ruling the roost", on the other hand, are not calm, nor are they conciliatory and they certainly are not helpful. I am becoming increasingly convinced that on balance, you are a net negative to useful progress in the enforcement action pages. ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You're half right, Polargeo is involved. But the fact that you can successfully bait me doesn't make me involved. As for LHvU, you can't really even successfully bait him, so what's the basis for your argument? That he's voted in favor of doing something about WMC more than once? Sorry, that dog don't hunt. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was being supportive of an editor who you yourself appear to support and yet you moved my comments. I think this shows that my judgement has a level of neutrality and fairness that you do not even seem to aspire to Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo: I don't think you're judging anger well, I am not angry, merely frustrated. But I sense much anger from you, unless this bluster is your normal tone. But that's not relevant really. What is: I think you should answer my question... you want an actual arbcom ruling and nothing short of that will suffice? Several arbs have opined about CC involvement already... asking for a ruling after that clear guidance shows WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality. Again, be careful what you ask for. As a refresher, here's a quote from Risker, made at the first CC case request:

Coren's summation of "involved admin" is more or less my thinking here; administrators who have been actively and extensively editing in this topic field will generally be considered to be involved, no matter that they may not have edited the specific article that is the current locus of dispute.

Read it. Ponder it. Then decide if you REALLY want a ruling anyway. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We uninvolved admins - is this the royal we? Who else has? Diffs please William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Read it, pondered it, and I don't hold a comment by Risker up as some sort of devine proclamation. I don't see that it has made its way into any policy statement yet. Also this is such a large area of wikipedia I don't think this is a useful definition. If we are to take this sort of definition I think sanctions should just be abandoned all together because any admin continually hanging around the area (such as yourself) could be as involved as anyone who has edited one of the thousands of articles on the subject. Just not useful. Polargeo (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to Lar to decide if my comments are involved or not. If anyone had not noticed I am in the midst of a major dispute with Lar. His move of my comments and then revert when I put them back is not supportable. Please return my comments and when an RfC/arbcom ruling is made this matter can be resolved. At present this is simple edit warring by Lar supported by threats to use his admin tools to block me. I feel quite sickened by this gaming. Polargeo (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is decorum, which is something the arbcomm has ruled they expect of admins. Lar fails, IMO. Don't dig yourself into the same hole. Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya, there's a lot of that going around. To some admins and ex admins the failure comes naturally. Others such as myself need to be baited into losing their decorum, for the most part. Being baited isn't an excuse, mind, but perhaps if there was less baiting? ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you edit quite a lot in this area, including recently. That makes you involved. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo's involvement

This historical revision contains an RFE Polargeo filed against himself. Some quotes from that RFE, in which Polargeo comments on himself in the third person:

• "I think Polargeo is right and I should be banned. The level of the ban is obviously up to uninvolved admins to decide on."
• "I have several times commented as an uninvolved admin when I clearly was involved and therefore should be banned from doing this again, ever. Sorry if this sounds a little strange. I am really genuine about this."
• "I disagree passionately with this probation. I believe it was initially not advertised wide enough to be a proper consensus."
• "My comments in the admin sections are largely to do with a protest against Lar’s involvement but that is not the motivation for this request. The motivation is to bring about a sanction on myself which clears up my involvement status and in extreme prevents me from commenting in the enforcements area altogether which is an area I fundamentally disagree with."
• "I should be banned from ever adding a comment to the section for uninvolved admins on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. If admins wish to take this further and ban me from ever editing the page Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement then that would be acceptable to me and I would not complain, in fact I think it would help."

There are two possibilities here:

1. If those comments were sincere, then Polargeo himself believes he is involved, and should not be commenting further as an uninvolved in this probation. He was literally asking to be banned.
2. If Polargeo was simply trying to make a point, then he certainly should not be commenting in the uninvolved section, perhaps not at all, because it's clear that his point is that the probation is itself invalid and that he intends to do what he can to disrupt it.

I choose the first interpretation, in the spirit of AGF. But either interpretation leads to the same conclusion: Polargeo should be banned from the uninvolved section at a minimum. ATren (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@ATren. Things have moved on a lot since then. I did not understand how much other admins did not share my personal principles. By the rules of wikipedia I truly believe I am not "involved" in the present case of Marknutley. I suggest you wait for proper rulings resulting from the RfC and arbcom rather than trying to push through your views in a forum that is currently being questioned to this extent. Polargeo (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly has changed that takes you from involved to uninvolved in such a short time? ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Atren on his overall analysis, lets be honest here. I'm afraid I can't find a more tactful way too say this. Polargeo has been undertaking a campaign against Lar in multiple venues over the past few weeks. Todays events are a progression tactic of this campaign and should be viewed and handled as such.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Without disagreeing or agreeing with you, let's assume you're right, and that Polargeo is undertaking a campaign against Lar in multiple venues. Should Lar be threatening to block someone who is doing that, or should Lar be seeking others to do so instead of him? There are two issues here - should Polargeo be posting in that section, and should Lar be multiply reverting and threatening to block him? My answers are "No" and "No." What are yours? Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Point of information. Your revert count is off. Polargeo and I were at one revert each. he posted in the wrong section, I moved it, he moved it back (first revert by him) to the wrong section, and I moved it back to the correct section (first revert by me). At that point I started the thread here on talk. Polargeo is engaged in some sort of disruption campaign, for whatever reason, but let's not falsely accuse him of multiple reverts. One each, he and I. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Past practice has always been that we don't allow people to game the system by picking a fight with an admin and then saying that means they're involved.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true that we don't allow people to game the system by trying to pick a fight with someone and saying that makes them involved. I contend that past practice is not that succeding in picking a fight with someone allows them to remain uninvolved. When Lar threatened to block Polargeo if Polargeo reverted Lar's decision that Polargeo was involved, as opposed to seeking outside support for his decision, he lost his "You can't bait me into wrong actions" mantle. It is not appropriate admin behavior to escalate dispuites by multiply reverting people and threatening to block them. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless that persons behavior appropriately deserves reversion and possible blocking.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, are you arguing that Lar edit-warring on the page and threatening to block another admin is the optimal action, or would him tagging the problematic content and seeking other opinions have been a better action? Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing that arguing about the minutia of the problem is falling into the game Polargeo's playing. As I said, this isn't a natural dispute, it's a tactic.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The users who told Lar to find a better solution than edit warring were me and Thparkth. I, of course, am part of the evil group of people hell-bent on having an encyclopedia that accurately reflects the best sources out there. How exactly is Thparkth aligned with Polargeo? Both of us want the edit warring and threats of blocking to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also noticed you jumping to Lar's defence before. You have not just turned up from nowhere. Therefore I consider your own thread to be a tactic. This is going nowhere and cannot be resolved on this talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Easily disproven that i'm some sort of Lar supporter. Not a matter for this thread, if you're interested stop by my talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem happy to jump in and mudsling against me without understanding any of the issues though so I do not think things are as easily disproven as you think they are. E.g. you are supporting Lar's fairly forthright views at the RfC [23] Polargeo (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, see my talkpage.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: Perhaps. Or perhaps just enforcing the way things are done is the right approach. I don't really see you as having a lot of standing to criticise the behavior of others though, as your actions often result in escalation of situations. Whether that's your intent or not. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As a fellow admin I have a true concern over Lar's involvement affecting his decisions. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my own editing or any actions of his against myself. I have taken this matter to RfC. Then Lar sees fit to move my uninvolved and very sensible comments on an unrelated case. A thing I would not even contemplate to do against him, even though I have considered him to be involved many times previously. Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your intentions, this kind of situation undermines the probation because it makes it look chaotic, and you're making yourself look bad into the bargain. Whatever your concerns about anyone else, you are involved, so please approach the probation pages as a regular editor in future. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Slim, what do you think about Lar multiply engaging in revert warring and threatening to block another admin on the page? Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is a few editors telling me I am involved and cannot act as an uninvolved admin in absolutely any debate involving any climate change article ever I will not be persuaded. Please point me to the policy that says I am involved. Not to the comments of an arbitrator who recused. This should be discussed at the RfC and not here anyway. Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's say for the moment that there is a legitimate dispute about whether or not you are involved. Can you see any possible compromise that would allow you and Lar to coexist on the enforcement page? Thparkth (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is my position that you have compromised your perceived objectivity in the medium term through the RFE you filed early to get yourself banned from this page, amongst other actions. I should note that I believe Lar has also compromised his objectivity through his multiple personal attacks directed at WMC and other users, including myself, his freqent disruptive reverts at this page, his threats to abuse his adminstrative tools, the ease at which he can be "baited," and the frequent documented errors of fact he has made in this area. Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Polargeo) Any common-sense interpretation of "involved" says that you're involved, and to be honest if you can't see that I'm not clear about why you're an admin. The degree of disruption you've been causing is really unacceptable. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please answer my question, above - "what do you think about Lar multiply engaging in revert warring and threatening to block another admin on the page?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The attempt at linkage is part of what's increasingly looking like game-playing. What I will say is that I hope Polargeo will consider the increasing risk of being blocked or desyopped if he continues with the same approach, because this is not the behaviour expected of admins. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuqese me? I'm "game-playing?" I'm asking you if Lar's actions are acceptable, and your answer is "Polargeo's are not," and I'm the one "game-playing?" Is that the behavior expected of admins, Slim? Dodging questions and accusing people of "game playing?" Just trying to figure that out. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you are becoming as disruptive as Polargeo. Please stop. Lar had every right as an uninvolved admin to enforce a standard on that enforcement page. Polargeo is admitteddly involved and yet was repeatedly adding to the uninvolved section, a blatant violation. In response, Lar did not even block (though I think he had every right to), he only threatened to, yet he is being attacked here even though it was Polargeo who was obviously acting inappropriately. This anti-Lar campaign has to stop. Polargeo is the disruptor here. ATren (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So many of the people here have told me that threats were unhelpful. I wonder when they'll come down on you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As a "defender of the Lar", could you explain his We uninvolved admins have consistently in the past... above? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing that requires explaining. ATren (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Who, other than Lar, has moved comments? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, you should know the answer to that question. ATren (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No: Lar said We uninvolved admins - you need examples of admins moving comments William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well i have mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I moved some Weakopedia comments. And probably some others. Incidentally Lar moved one of mine as well just now... --BozMo talk 17:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

They were part of a thread and it seemed better to keep the thread together... Do feel free to move them back if you feel it necessary. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the examples above are of removing non-admin comments. I agree there is broad agreement that anyone may move non-admin comments. I believe what needs to be shown to demonstrate that the way we do things is to remove uninvolved but-still-admin comments is to demonstrate that happening. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Absent any uninvolved admin either returning the comments, or requesting that Lar provide his rationale for his actions, it could be assumed that the other uninvolved admins believe that Lars actions are not wrong (I am not saying all other admins are saying they are right, simply that there is not a case to reverse those actions). I would think that in an instance where only you, and previously Stephan Schulz, have contested that you should appear in such a category that you should find a determination that your interpretation is correct and the existing consensus is wrong. Per BRD, your Bold editing is the uninvolved admins section has been Reverted and thus it stays until the Discussion is concluded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  An interesting argument. Would the same hold if I were to remove Lar's comments and only Lar was willing to restore them and threaten to block me? How about if Polargeo were to do so and only Lar was willing to restore them and threaten to block? How about if Guettarda were to do so and only Lar was willing to restore them and threaten to block? How about if unquestionably uninvolved Admin 1 were to do so and only Lar was willing to restore them and threaten to block? How about if "unarguably uninvolved" admins 1-10 wanted to remove something, but "possibly involved" admins 1 and 2 thought it should stay? Trying to understand the limits between "BRD" and "stop edit warring," here. Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the Wikipedia:Silence and consensus argument; in this instance if anyone else were to replace Polargeo's comments then consensus exists for them to be in that place, if anyone other than Lar were to remove Polargeo comments then there would be an obvious consensus for them to be removed, and if no-one reverts Lar's removal other than Polargeo then there is the "weak consensus" as noted. There is also the small matter that no-one else acted because the main players were too prompt, but no-one has categorically stated that they would have done so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The only consensus was that it looked like a wasps nest. I would not touch that kind of argument with a barge pole. --BozMo talk 21:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. In summary, you are advocating that anyone (or any admin - still not clear - please do clarify this) can remove, and then if a third party replaces, it should stick? How do we deal with the fact that Badmin A and Badmin B both are involved but have a nefarious deal to reinclude Badmin A's posts even afer Goodmin C removes them? Hipocrite (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Actually, reading farther, you appear to be arguing that "you each get one action" is the goal here. Dosen't that just mean majority rules on who can post? Doesn't seem very fair to the minority - they don't even get a voice, if the majority wants to shut them up... Hipocrite (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Polargeo's comments should be moved, but I think an admin should step up and do it. I'm sure most, if not all, of the admins who participate here besides Lar and LHVU, including 2/0, Wordsmith, BozMo, NW, and AGK are following this discussion. One of you needs to step up, support Lar, and do the right thing here. If you don't, you're just making your work here harder. You need to enforce the letter of the law. Polargeo is a frequent editor in the climate change articles. Kick his rear-end out of the admin section and let's get back to business. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@Cla68, I appreciate the sentiment but as the Probation terms are worded "involved" is interpreted very narrowly: "a frequent editor in the climate change articles" does not make you involved in every enforcement dispute. Whatever the "felt fairness" about it, Polargeo technically is probably not counted as involved. Using a subjective WP:IAR judgement against an admin and against the letter of an Arbcom ruling is a really ballsy move, for which I privately give Lar lots of courage points. Reverting it a second time without getting another admin to back you up made me wish I could drop the rest of my life for a few hours and have a hard look, it is out on a limb but presumably with high conviction. In response the decision to bar Polargeo from acting as uninvolved is also an expedient but complicated one. My own personal view is that it is a good call in part because the WP:BATTLE tendency which he displays demonstrates too much emotional involvement in what is going on; I am not regarding it as an implicit endorsement on my part of the "felt fairness" interpretation of uninvolved. It would be nice to have a longer list of admins to choose from, then we could make the definitions of involved broader. --BozMo talk 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

BozMo, Marknutley got a 6-month ban from raising requests for almost nothing. Polargeo freely admits he thinks this whole thing is invalid, has directly asked for a ban, and has been disrupting it for over a month, yet admins (except for Lar) are still waffling about his involved status. This is yet another example of the uneven playing field here. Lar was right to move the comment from this long term disruptive editor (on these pages anyways) and the only thing I would have done differently was block Polargeo after his revert. Jeez, 2/0 indef-blocked GoRight for a what amounts to a tiny level of disruption compared to this; Marknutley has long term bans on almost everything for doing the same things everyone else is doing; and here we are debating how to handle an admin who himself formally admitted that he was involved and declared passionately he should be banned. Really. ATren (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I get the point but it is kind of more complicated. I alluded to this in opening the question about whether the probation terms covered its own enforcement pages. As yet until someone raises the issue of Polargeo's behaviour on the enforcement page and some conclusion is reached about it he remains innocent until concluded guilty of the disruption etc you accuse him of. --BozMo talk 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually BozMo, it's not that complicated at all. Polargeo is biased about this process, he's disruptive, and he's been pursuing a campaign against me for some time. The rest of you lot seem content to let him. ATren is right. Step up and do something about it, why don't you? The current proposed close is unacceptable, it's far too even handed. A better close would be to ban Polargeo from these pages, indefinitely, (that is, until some sign that he's less BATTLish is given) and slap my wrist for one revert too many and move on. The facts on the ground support that outcome. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So far I have not brought any issues to the probation page I have only been reactive. No one else has brought Polargeo's behaviour toward you to the enforcement page with conveniently collected diffs and I have not therefore made a detailed study of it. What I have seen would broadly support your complaint though but it may not be a balanced sample (I watch your talk page and the probation page but I don't for example watch his talk page where for all I know you might have been up to all sorts of... ok perhaps thats unlikely but I don't have the data to go on). I don't think he quite gets how the probation thing is supposed to work yet though, and some of the disruption was from not getting it rather than trying to upset it. --BozMo talk 15:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine, I'll go through the motions again. I'll post a huge bunch of diffs, then watch as admins, who refuse to sanction one of their own, ignore it, or hand out yet another empty warning. ATren (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that Hipocrite had helpfully forced a decision by filing a formal request on the matter. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Once a third party - in this instance an uninvolved admin - takes a position supporting one of the two parties in dispute then it is recognised that there is a consensus for the actions of that party. Yes, the third party may be acting in cahoots with the party they support - but that is a separate issue (and off we go on the cabal/anti-cabal merry-go-round). If the consensus thus established is obviously wrong, then it may be expected that an uninvolved admin will speak up or even act to question the consensus, and then a discussion commences. I am not saying that everyone gets one action only, but all parties should be aware that edit warring is not the appropriate manner of determining consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo's comment on the result

Lar and Polargeo are cautioned to maintain proper decorum while editing the English Wikipedia. - Lar is strongly encouraged to recuse himself as an uninvolved administrator from enforcement requests where sanctions are requested against or involving Polargeo as a party, for the next 3 months. - Polargeo is required to recuse himself as an uninvolved administrator at the Climate Change general sanctions for the next 3 months. - LessHeard

I have absolutely no problem with this sanction against myself. I have been a little over the top recently in general and could do with a break. I do have a problem that I wish to outline though.

• Conflicts between editors (not as the result of standard admin dealings) clearly come under the general wikipedia definition of WP:INVOLVED. The disclaimer is as follows important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role Therefore if there are situations where an administrator has interacted with an editor in a potentially biased or non-minor way outside of their standard admin role such as Lar has done then they really should not act as admins, not ever (not ever ever ever) with that particular editor by basic wikipedia policy and that should not be overturned by a few admins on the sanctions page. Therefore Lar should never act as uninvolved with WMC or with respect to me and nor me with Lar by basic policy (not three months). However, in this upsidedown world of CC sanctions this is considered a lower priority than the basic editing of any of the 1000s of CC articles even in a neutral unbiased manner. This is completely against any stated policy and should be above the decision of a few CC admins here which is why I didn't comment on the case and wished to leave it to an arbcom rulling, however, it doesn't appear that WP policy gets in the way of CC sanctions decisions (If I have never acted in a biased way on a case with a particular editor or even edited a particular article there is no policy which states that I am involved, none). Polargeo (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• It appears that the definition of involved prefered by Lar is being taken from the comments of individual arbitiers particularly one who actually recused in the rejected case of the individuals (Lar and Stephen Schulz). This will not stand up in court my lord and is not an arbcomm ruling. Therefore we should refer to policy until such an arbcom ruling is made. Polargeo (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If we wish to look at the actual arbcom ruling then please let us do so [24]

Avoiding apparent impropriety

All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator’s position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Can someone explain to me how my very neutral comments on the Marknutley case contravened this arbcom ruling and how Lar's actions with regard to WMC and myself for that matter do not. Also explain to me how this or any other ruling translates to "any editor who has ever edited a CC article can never act as an uninvolved admin in enforcement"? Because I cannot see it. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No. No one can explain to you the exact logic, since different uninvolved editors involved in the decision had different logic; the consensus was limited to the outcome. My own view was that you were "uninvolved", and I noted your particular edits were very neutral. However (as you say) you have been somewhat polemic and partisan of late so your contribution in the "uninvolved" comments section is likely to cause misconceptions about partiality. For me the decision to bar you from all "uninvolved" discussion was more about the continued trust which editors of all sides placed on the enforcement process. For me the decision to bar Lar from cases involving you was similar, impartial though he might try to be, history would make it harder for him to appear fair. Consequently it was not so much about the specifics of this case (for me) but recent edits which this case typifies. Other people reached the same outcome from different directions. My view on these issues is extendable to other things: if a blog attacks WMC then there is no Wikipedia rule making him conflicted from editing the article on the blog. However, with no suggestion at all of fault, I think it is better if we just try not to get involved where any (however false) accusation could appear substantial. --BozMo talk 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So my involvement here in any way and not my actual technical involvement in the case in question was the problem, fair enough I accept a three month ban from acting as uninvolved in sanctions. However, this has been judged by admins on the sanctions page. I just wished that admins would have the principles to actually act when someone who is clearly biased tries to claim they are uninvolved in a particular case. This appears to me to be clearly what the arbcom rulings are stating is the problem and is something Lar falls foul of with respect to both myself and WMC, and will still do even after three months have passed, or a year for that matter. Polargeo (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an open RFC on that. It may get sorted out (presuming you are right that it needs to be) but the subjectivity is rather difficult. On top of which a plausible reading of history makes Lar out as victim more than perpetrator (although his choice of description is not perfect by any means). --BozMo talk 16:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Victim? With respect to Lar and WMC we are looking at stuff that happened before sanctions began (stuff I only brought up on the talkpage of the RFC/U because I didn't know it when the RFC/U began). Where Lar made a personal attack against WMC on matters completely unrelated to CC. How clear can we be here that Lar falls foul of the arbcom ruling (which I have outlined above) when acting as uninvolved with relation to WMC. I don't care that much for people trying to use individual arbiters' statements on unrelated cases against me when they ignore actual arbcom rulings themselves. Polargeo (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you care or do not care for, I feel you should stop these kind of comments. The only form in which it is acceptable for an admin like you to make judgements of this form is in a very carefully considered form supported by a vast number of carefully chosen diffs. If you feel that what I have called "a plausible reading of history" (not my own opinion) is not plausible you need to support it carefully and be prepared to defend your view. In such circumstances the RFC on Lar might be the right place. If you don't have time to support something in detail please don't say it, unenforceable and unrefuted allegations undermine the whole project. --BozMo talk 21:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But Bozmo I can and have supported this with diffs. It only really needs one diff but there are more, such as this. I think Lar's animosity towards WMC started with him undoing the close of an MfD [25], before and after undoing this close Lar participated in the discussion and so was not acting as an neutral admin. This shows that in two completely unrelated cases, before CC sanctions began and where Lar was not acting as an admin in either, Lar has shown a clear animosity towards WMC. Therefore Lar now acting as an admin on sanctions generally arguing against WMC when All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy, the policy here is WP:INVOLVED. Clear as day. Polargeo (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, this thread comes across as just another WP:POINT/WP:FORUMSHOP violation on your part. A large portion of your comments appear to be variations of your 'Lar is involved' diatribe that you believe are worded cleverly enough to warrant a repost, I'd just be very attuned to whether your comments have an agenda before making them. If you do decide you should make a comment with an agenda, make the agenda explicit (i.e., say what you mean), and if what you mean is a repeat of something you've already said, then hold back.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you it is entirely correct for me to discuss the conclusions of a recent enforcement on the enforcement talkpage. All the stuff above is so spread around that I'm not even certain all admins here were aware of the facts. Polargeo (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Duck .. the evidence

Apparently, there is a lower standard of evidence for blocking a new user on suspicion of being sock, then there is for uncivilly from experienced users. From Wikipedia:DUCK:

1.  Beyond a reasonable doubt
2.  Clear and convincing evidence
3.  Preponderance of the evidence
4.  Duck test (suspicion)

These levels have utility in improving this RFE, before I express a view in the RFC, would anyone like to comment which evidence level might be appropriate for blocking uncivil behavior that does not include sock puppetry? I am concerned about users who sock new users with their bites, which evidence level to apply in addressing them. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You understand that nobody wants to talk publicly about the "evidence level" because a smart sockmaster could easily adapt his behaviour if he knew what people were looking for, right? Thparkth (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i do. My comment is directed to talking about establishing the appropriate evidence level for this RFE. I can sustain the duck test on sock suspects for precautions and investigation to gather direct evidence; however, it could be handled better while there is only an indirect suspicion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious whether people believe this is Scibaby or some other sock. If it is argued that this user is a Scibaby sockpuppet, then I have some issue with that, because there is at least one aspect of this user that is definitely NOT typical of Scibaby. And if he's not Scibaby, then why is he blocked before checkuser confirms sockpuppetry and a sockmaster? An indef block on these grounds seems unwarranted given the evidence I've seen. ATren (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He may or not be Scibaby, but it's clearly broken to assume that every skeptic sockpuppet is specifically a Scibaby sockpuppet, with no real evidence, forever. If nothing else, does it really seem credible that someone so determined and obviously not stupid as Scibaby wouldn't at least learn better socking technique after so many attempts? Thparkth (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What is fun is that one editor who claimed users were socks of Scibaby at SPI -- was just indeffed for running a sock for 4 years <g>. As the saying goes "Sentence first, verdict afterwards." Collect (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm only willing to respond to people who doubt these are socks if they are willing to put their money where their mouth is - if they turn out to be wrong, they have to promise never to question me about sock judgements again - forever. If I turn out to be wrong and they are actually and truly new users, I'll never report socks in this area to anything but SPI. Otherwise, it's just disruption from people who support the goals of the socks - because that's what ZP5 and ATren are engaging in - they are disrupting wikipedia by supporting obvious and transparent sockpuppetry. Hipocrite (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

False dichotomy. If you're questioned about something you can choose not to answer, but in turn your claims can then be disregarded, I'd think. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree. ATren and ZP5 are engaging in dillatory disruption. I see no reason to continue answering their increasingly tangential objections untill such time as someone with the ability to unblock shows up and says that their objections have some merit. Are you saying either of these accounts are not socks? Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that ATren and ZP5 are engaging in dilatory disruption. You may not agree with them about matters, your prerogative, but I think you go too far with that sort of accusation. (you may want to review WP:AGF) Further, I don't think any of us have to play "you bet your sock-finding-reputation" with you to get you to say whatever it is you want to say. You should just say it with far less drama. Finally, I take no position on which accounts might or might not be socks, and further, since I have recused from any CU actions while an Ombudsman, I'm not going to go check, either. That's not the point. The point is you seem to be getting a bit blustery in tone. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand - I gave a small subset of the evidence before, but that was reverted and revision deleted. Are you instructing me to edit war? Also, since you won't take a position on if something is a sock or not, why should I try to convince you something is a sock. Seems like a waste of my time. Hipocrite (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you do understand. I certainly don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here. File an SPI, or contact a CU privately, or drop it, and stop with the bluster. I'm not instructing you to edit war. Nor am I instructing you to jump off a cliff, or to paint your fingernails purple, in case there was any confusion on that point. If you're concerned about wasting time, reviewing what you say before you actually say it might be a good way to avoid a fair bit of time wasted. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He has filed an SPI, see the latest addition to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Good deal. That collapses a lot of argument, for example about what to do if he doesn't, etc. Thanks for the heads up. ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that these users are socks, but I think it's fair to ask whether they're specifically Scibaby socks, because they might get slightly more charitable treatment if they're not. But since there's really no way to know for sure, it's a moot question. Thparkth (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not state they were scibaby socks on the enforcement page. Their block messages do not state they are scibaby socks. Per WP:SOCK, users are not permitted to "use alternate accounts to mislead." When asked about his other accounts, he denied their existance. While it is possibe that this is a seperate account from a real-name account designed to prevent him from recieving professional backlash, it is on the sockmaster to say that. If he had said that, he likley would have been blocked untill the parent account confirmed it's existance and good standing and uninvolvedness to an admin or two. However, socks may not mislead. Hipocrite (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If they are not Scibaby, then why are they being blocked without CU? I thought only obvious Scibaby socks got such treatment, and the fact that it's being extended to those who are not obviously Scibaby is a concern. And BTW, it is entirely possible they are not a sock -- they could have experience from IP editing or have come from another project. Note, I am not defending this user per se, I am expressing concern about a process that indefs a user based on such flimsy evidence and without even a CU to (at the very least) confirm that the user is connecting through a proxy. ATren (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For violations of WP:SOCK, which is a blockable offense, regardless of who the sockmaster is. CU is not magic pixie dust, but the editing history of those accounts is obvious and transparent. Take my challenge or don't. Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Further to Hipocrite's comment above see WP:FALSENEGATIVE. CU evidence can only confirm sockpuppetry. A negative CU result does not disprove sockpuppetry, as it is trivially easy to sockpuppet so as to avoid a positive CU result. Note also that WP:SPI specifically states that CU is not to be used in "cases where behavioral evidence is sufficient to decide the matter." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This user had a total of about 50 25 edits. How is this evidence alone sufficient for an indef block? Note, the edits were provocative and possibly pointy, but they were not vandalism, and just last week many editors here were defending the exact same type of edits on Fred Singer. We should not use the Scibaby protocol on such editors; we should CU and if the CU comes up negative, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. ATren (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, unless you take my sockpuppetry pledge, I can't discuss why it's obvious that this is a sockpuppet with you. Hipocrite (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god. I've only just now looked at the edits. The feathers and the bill are there and I think I can see some webbed feet. Not conclusive because I haven't yet seen it lay a egg so I will reserve judgement. Polargeo (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the blocking of socks irrespective of who the sockmaster is; True, but it has to be sockpuppetry rather than using an WP:Alternative account - that is, it has to abuse the alternative account policy. There has to be a clear intent to effect consensus by vote stacking, mutual support, creating strawman arguments, etc. or as a good hand/bad hand for making personal attacks without the good account being known, or are otherwise attempting to escape scrutiny except in limited cases, or other transgressions noted in the policy, or being a returning banned user. Unless it can be clearly shown that the account is Scibaby or another banned user, then it has to be shown as violating the alternate account policy in conjunction with another account editing CC related pages. I would note that I am commenting without reviewing any of the issues involving the discussed account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You should probably stop commenting until you review the issues involving the discussed account. Hipocrite (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You made the statement of not needing to know who the sockmaster is, without clarifying how violations of WP:SOCK work with such an absence; and you had best try and be as knowledgable about WP:CIVIL at the same time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So you agree with me that the account is, in fact, a sockpuppet, and all that remains is that I demonstrate why it is not in compliance with policy? I'm happy to do that, but I'm not doing it untill it is agreed the account is transparently a sock. Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you know they're a sock, and not (for example) a new account from another project? To be clear, I also believe they are a sock, but I am not confident enough in my judgement that I would support an indef ban for a new user with 25 edits. ATren (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am confident enough in my judgement that I would support an indef block. What other project do you think they came from, exactly, and who in gods name starts at another "project," but then gravitates here just to edit pointedly in the climate change space? Stop defending people doing wrong who you agree with - do you see me screaming up and down about Ratel? Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ratel's sock was confirmed via CU, and was shown to be using it to vote-stack. That's a completely different situation. There is no evidence here other than 25 edits, none of which are vandalism. ATren (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So we've reached the question dodging stage now? Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a clear sock per duck. A checkuser is not needed. End of story. Right to appeal is there if this user is genuine. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite is confident enough in his own judgement to support a block - that is not at all surprising, despite his history of inappropriate sockpuppetry accusations. What is more surprising is admins involved with this probation clamouring to ban people with very few edits, refusing to discuss it with the people in question, and other admins from this probation denying their unblock requests. At best it is an extreme expression of bad faith assumption, at worst it could appear to some as a small group of involved admins trying to 'level the playing field' to their preferred combatants. Weakopedia (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the evidence will be established, after first assuming a blocking POV ... Wikipedia is about sourcing with referrals first before making a NPOV. In this case, Scibaby is the reliable source which was applied to block the editors. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of times that Scibabys name is thrown around, it is fair to assume that anyone who is not a long term contributor and who finds themselves editing CC articles will be accused being a sockpuppet - I was also wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet for daring to comment here. Specifically, anyone who hasn't made enough edits to show a pattern in their editing is invariably accused of being a sockpuppet. Anyone who has made enough edits to show a pattern still runs a fair chance of being accused of being a sock that has adapted to what people are looking out for. When admins block someone whose edits show no pattern, on the basis of they might be a sock, it is a pre-emptive block. There are so many people watching these articles that pre-emptive blocks are not needed. Pre-emtive blocks aren't used on the sanctions page and they are often a bad faith way to do things. This may not be an exception. Weakopedia (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia, I blocked one of the blatant socks. I have no history of editing the articles in question, and no POV on the topic itself. I have blocked quite a few editors demonstrating this behaviour outside this topic area, and before I was a sysop I reported dozens of editors who were later blocked for sockpuppetry by other admins. I've got some experience under my belt, so I know a duck when I see it. Your accusation against me is incorrect and I request that it be withdrawn. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could state exactly what accusation you are referring to. Weakopedia (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably this bit: What is more surprising is admins involved with this probation clamouring to ban people with very few edits, refusing to discuss it with the people in question, other admins from this probation denying their unblock requests. At best it is an extreme expression of bad faith assumption, at worst it could appear to some as a small group of involved admins trying to 'level the playing field' to their preferred combatants. Guettarda (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it to be a not-goodfaith approach to new editors, so no apologies there. And the second bit is (not even at all cleverly) worded to present a suggestion, not an accusation - that's the 'it could appear to some' bit you know. There has been a lot of talk about the word, to appear, recently and with the diligence put into sourcing on CC articles I am sure you all know the difference between a source saying 'that's how it is' and 'it could appear to some that that's how it was'. If not you should. Weakopedia (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, it's obvious sockpuppet "weakopedia," alledging that he's not a sockpuppet. How quaint. Hipocrite (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You were warned the last time you accused me of sockpuppetry that it wasn't appropriate. Weakopedia (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List all of your other accounts, through all time, and I'll accept that warning. Otherwise, you are a transparent sockpuppet, though you alledge you are not abusive. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The argument from ignorance about the sock suspects is now an argument from personal incredulity about Weakopedia. How absurd. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, sir, that's not the argument. The argument about "weakopedia," is that he has admitted he's an alternative account. refuses to confirm or deny that he has used other accounts, and that his first edits made it clear he was a returning, experienced, disenchanted editor, and his user name makes that clear as well. At some point the honest amongst the skeptics (Atren, Cla68, Lar, I'm looking at you) are going to have to disavow sockpuppetry to get their way. I hope that comes sooner, rather than later. Hipocrite (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to (re-)provide the diff of that admission so it's handy here. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm not a skeptic. Nor is Cla68. I think you might want to try a somewhat different, and less bellicose, approach here. ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I struck that after reviewing my notes. I am compiling for an SPI report. Do you believe weakopedia had a previous account, Lar? Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant question. My beliefs in this matter are not relevant, as they have not been called into question. Yours have, and now your response is to insist on some sort of silly wager. Perhaps you could just file your SPI report and we could move on. It would be less dramatic. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That is quite simply an untruth - I have consistently denied your accusations and invited you time after time to take your accusations to the appropriate venue. Boring accusations are one thing, misreprenting my words is quite another. Provide a diff if you can - it won't help as I am not a sock. Enough crying, take it to the appropriate venue or give it up. Weakopedia (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My view: Yep, most (if not all) of those recently blocked were socks. Perhaps even mostly SciBaby. The problem here is that if there is no evidence of disruption, it by default requires some mega bad faith assumptions to block these accounts. In other words, see [[26]]. Arkon (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, where do editors file for a WP:CLEANSTART permit? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Standard offer. Guettarda (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiding of Hipocrites revisions

As ATren has had a detailed discussion with User talk:ClimateOracle about how not to get spotted I think Hipocrites comments do not really need to be hidden in the edit history. Maybe if he was revealing some dynamite secret but I don't think it is sufficient to justify an IAR on this new admin power. This is not meant to be my hard and fast position but is just a comment, if no one else thinks this way I will let this drop. Polargeo (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that after so many years (4? 5?) Scibaby doesn't know about the trivially obvious stuff I wrote? I have absolutely no inside knowledge into the CU process; everything I posted is knowledge that anyone watching this debate for a few years would accumulate. ATren (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no concerns about my revisions being hidden. I also don't think it's so super sekrit, but I don't care that much. Hipocrite (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

@ATren, my point exactly. Your comments do not reveal anything more than Hipocrites comments. Therefore any use of hiding edits against policy is probably not worth it. If it wasn't a sock you have just given a fresh new blocked user a few lessons in socking :).

@Hipocrite. It is no big deal to me either but partly because of that these admin powers should not be used in this situation. I was just concerned that hiding comments may become the fashionable thing to do even when policy does not allow for it (this is purely a wikipedia creep of power consideration). Polargeo (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• NW has unhidden the edits and this is not an issue. Polargeo (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How to avoid True Negatives

This sock discussion could benefit from how to avoid true negatives in a sock diagnosis. Frankly, Hipocrite extending this supporting socks business to Atren and I is the kind of paranoia that leads to abusive administrations. To avoid frivolous claim which amount to True Negatives, the accusers must take greater precautions and give warnings and other challenges before a block. Making untested blocks, on edit history assumptions, can say more about the accusers biases then the alleged offender's. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This one came in much too sharply. So sharply and to the point that it is likely someone who has been involved in enforcement arguments and/or the Fred Singer article. Obviously nobody has any evidence to accuse an individual here, but a fairly clear duck. Also one who really knows about wikipedia policy and referenceing so that removes quite a few people from any suspision. Polargeo (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Also one who really knows about wikipedia policy and referenceing" - clearly not a REAL climate change editor at all then ;) Thparkth (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A safe bet :) Polargeo (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be amazed if Scibaby were involved in these "enforcement arguments and/or the Fred Singer article" unless I must assume bad faith in Wikipedia to keep them out. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Most people don't think this is Scibaby. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There are at least 4 highly involved editors who seem too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I cannot blame them for going through the checks. You never know. But the block does not depend on the user being Scibaby and nobody has said that it does. Polargeo (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, unless they have any interest whatsoever in climate change in which case they must wait an appropriate time (as perceived by some people who all seem to have been sanctioned already) while editing other things before they are allowed to edit the subject they want.

Shouldn't there be a disclaimer on articles under this probation saying that you will be banned if you dare to edit them before having several hundred edits under your belt? Or just change the five pillars of wikipedia to suit how the sanctions are progressing. Weakopedia (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point about increasing the Sanction Warnings, it should be done. Unfortunately, it will keep people out. Maybe a better way to protect the innocent. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

New editors who are not transparently sockpuppets get reported to SPI sometimes, but I don't see many of them getting blocked. Perhaps you should show evidence of people being inapropriately blocked, rather than inapropriately (or appropriately, though they refuse to admit it) being accused. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

True negative (or false positive) evidence will be convincing for a Scibaby review; however, at this point the burden remains on the sock accuser and should be fairly shifted to a suspect based on something beyond the accusers POV on the suspects non-disruptive editing. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• You are actually talking about avoiding false positives, not true negatives. As an aside, let's be clear that we're not talking about an editor who demonstrated a genuine interest in the encyclopedic coverage of climate change. This is obviously not a new user, but... Even if we bury our heads in the sand and take this editor's response at face value, this is someone who came here specifically to target and oppose another Wikipedian. Experience suggests that the likelihood of someone coming here motivated by animus toward a specific editor, and then morphing into a productive contributor to this site, is near zero. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, that makes sense. I was trying to figure out why we'd want to avoid true negatives :) Guettarda (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, let me clarify. Avoiding the True Negative means we never screen or duck test to subject them to review which cost the community resources hence a Type 3 error. (ARE WE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION BY ACCUSING THEM AS SCIEBABY?) Avoiding the False Positives means, when we apply the tests and challenges they have incorrectly identified a sock and the meaningful specificity of the tests goes down hence a Type 1 error. Assuming Good Faith is the premise that we are all True Negative socks, until evidence is established. I've amended above, the question is pointed toward avoiding applying the duck test, which by application invokes a truth table and community time. The down side of avoiding the duck test, is a few True Positives might be missed which is a Type 1 error. (see Type_I_and_type_II_errors). Type 3 errors are often neglected because error analysis does not include economic asymmetries or the question is logically intractable. So the base question is an accusers POV on another editor as a sock sufficient. It seems reasonable to me when the accusation has been seconded. However, better user education with the probation warning tag also seems reasonable, so I will take this to Template_talk:Community_article_probation. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Request an admin remove a pa

I have now asked user ChrisO to remove this [27] attack three times, he has been on wiki and has ignored my requests to retract it. I ask that an admin redacts it and rebukes user ChrisO for both the attack and his failure to remove it mark nutley (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's over-aggressive and ChrisO should not have used that wording. On the other hand the underlying question is on point. Why did you insert content that you knew to be false? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not insert content which i knew to be false, and to say i did is also a PA and a breach of AGF. I used what the refs say, which btw is what we are meant to do. mark nutley (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you really believe that it hadn't snowed in London since 1922? Really? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not think about it, like i said we use what the sources say per policy. mark nutley (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the source says "the first to fall in the month of October since the year of grace 1922" (emphasis added). [28] You didn't even stick to the source. You've been repeatedly warned about misrepresenting sources; please take those warnings to heart. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well now here`s a funny thing, I did not even insert that ref into the article. Would you care to retract your accusations? mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And this is the ref i did use [29] and this was the edit for that ref [30] Now retract your claim that i misrepresented the sources mark nutley (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected; please accept my apologies. While we're on the subject were any of these[31][32][33][34] yours? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources may be, the Andrew Bolt one is one i do recall inserting, however The Gore Effect has also been humorously invoked at several climate rallies I never wrote that line, i have no idea who did. mark nutley (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged the pa. Just a note that requests for refactoring should be made on the main page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is bad enough when someone accuses another editor of misrepresenting a source that they didn't even add, though everyone can make a mistake and a swift apology is often all that is needed. However, it is worse when someone accuses another editor of inserting "content that you knew to be false" - even disregarding that Mark didn't add the source, if SBHB believed that he did he still didn't have enough information to say that Mark deliberately added falsehoods. This is a clear case of commenting on the motivations of an editor when that was unnecessary - the fact is that both assumptions contained in the question "Why did you insert content that you knew to be false?" were false, but it is the assumption as to Marks motivations that takes this matter into the realm of PA, and even if SBHB had been correct about who added the source that still would not have created a scenario for accusing that someone of deliberately adding false information. I would encourage SBHB to take a step back from the probation system to re-examine the concept of commenting on edits, not editors. Weakopedia (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also a concern that a third party would bring up such concerns when the two parties involved have apparently settled the matter between the two of them. No, the accusation did not help but neither does bringing it up again. There is apparently an ArbCom case where such issues may be raised, I understand - although likely all aspects will be reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If editors wish private discussions they can best hold them on their own talkpages rather than on a talkpage that invites comments from third parties. And seeing as how, despite an unsucessful SPI, I have still have editors, even admins such as the comment below, hounding me about sockpuppetry I really should say something at the ArbCom thingie about good faith in general. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't fully understand, I've not been following events close enough recently I've been trying to keep my head down. I know that recently there have been several arguments over socks and SPIs. If I have offended you then that was not my intention. Polargeo (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I took your sock comment to be a continuation of the alegations of sockpuppetry against me, which were taken to SPI and the case rejected. Whether that's what you meant or not, since your intention was not to offend you have my apology also. I'm probably getting overly paranoid about it. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I did not know that you had such serious allegations against yourself. I have never doubted your intentions and even if you are a returned user then that would not be an issue. Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - although for the record I am not a returned user, if I had any previous account I would have disclosed that at the SPI or via email to ArbCom. Weakopedia (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A cheesy socky smell pervades the air. :) Polargeo (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No not intended to be helpful to current enforcement, which I have serious issues with, but just an observation, what is on my mind. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for somewhere to make off topic posts, you may want to consider getting a blog. I find it quite theraputic. Lately, I find just having one to be sufficient, I don't always actually have to post to it. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)