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

Fell Gleaming 2 and common sense

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

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

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

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

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

Continued from above because of browser limitations.

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

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

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

Success story

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

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

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

FellGleaming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over-reliance on blogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Lar's involvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also interesting that Lar came down on User:Stephan Schulz like the proverbial tonne of bricks [1] when he considered that Stephan was an "involved admin" in the ridiculously weak request for arbitration. [2], just follow the thread and weep at how over the top Lar is there. Lar is weighing in with all of his might in a rather shockingly biased way in this area and yet still claims uninvolved status for himself because he hasn't contributed to the articles. Polargeo (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on validity of sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Why are we getting into this trench warfare?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lar (moved from project page)

Respons(es) to this post:

moved content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

end moved content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.[3] 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)

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)

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)

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)