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

Regarding ChrisO's self enforcement request

Whoever closed it maybe should sign their close, it's common practice to do that. For the record I agree with that close, this isn't the place for reassurance. ++Lar: t/c 10:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BozMo. ++Lar: t/c 10:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the reminder! --BozMo talk 10:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove uninvolved admin section

In lieu of the arbcom decision the uninvolved admin section should be removed altogether. We cannot have individual admins moving the comments of other admins based on their own interpretation of the rules. Polargeo (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What interpretation is that? Do not comment if your A not an admin B Involved, stephan is and t osay he is not is ludicrous. He was being disruptive even posting in there mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And many times Lar has been disruptive posting there in my opinion. Also in my opinion Lar moved my comments when I was backing you up and I was not directly involved in the situation at all. Therefore the "uninvolved" admin section is currently nonsense and held only by Lar's tactics of ever so carefully never editing a CC article and using this as his trump card. It is clear that this section holds no weight whatsoever at present except what can be gained through muscle and bullying. Polargeo (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The probation page still states:

"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)."

and by that criteria Lars move was in error. But he seems to think otherwise, however, he hasn't made any attempt to change the stated criteria that I'm aware of. Maybe arbcom will void that or whatever... patience :) Vsmith (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That needs changing to match how things actually operate here, and we've been remiss in not doing that sooner. (policy here at WP is mostly descriptive, so where it's inaccurately describing how things are, it should be updated) May I suggest a separate section below where we hammer out an acceptable wording? ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The stated "definition" of involved has been simply ignored and "how things actually operate here" may be the problem. When admins knowingly ignore stated "policy" for this area and redefine things to suit their own views without seeking to clarify or even discuss the "definition" given, there is a problem. Seems one of the 3 arbcom requests leading to the current case directly involved this "definition problem" and yet the admins working this probation area have not seen fit to discuss or modify the "definition" given even after repeated disputes over it and some 7-8 months of ignoring it. But, likely rather late now and the current overdo arbcom decision may prove it moot — although if arbcom doesn't replace this or clarify things relating to it, then we should "hammer out an acceptable wording". Vsmith (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Lar was in error as he was with his previous move of my comments. His success that time seemed to ride on the fact that I had attempted to defend WMC against his obvious bias (therefore I was cabal!) and that I had protested a little too pointedly against him. Let's hope the arbcom decision comes really quickly and puts a stop to this ridiculous nonsense. Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As the current sanction under discussion is site wide related to CC articles then according to what you just posted VSmith then Stephan is involved mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case it includes all people involved in the CC arb case so that gets us nowhere. Polargeo (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The arb case is not a CC related article and i doubt anyone is about to slap NPOv tags on it :) mark nutley (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How about placing a {{Expand}} on the ArbCom PD page? :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It got reverted. ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The uninvolved admins section has previously been notable for polite and respectful discussion between the parties regarding the enforcement of the probation as regards the specific request. It has only become an area of contention when parties not considered uninvolved have posted there, or otherwise have posted there in regard to issues not specific to the request, or have subsequently been subject to allegations of non-uninvolvedness, therefore to remove that preserve where sysops can discuss the request without distraction is to allow the recent efforts at "modifying" the process to succeed in destroying it. The only drawback, until recently, to the section was that it lead to prevarication and delay before enactment was agreed - although it had also largely stopped the claims of biased unilateral actions by sysops. The uninvolved admins section had worked very well and instead of removing it there should be the decision to allow it to continue as before the Lar RfC where, it should be strongly noted, that no consensus that Lar was involved was found. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

LHVU, I think you are right. I have a question for the other admins active in this forum: BozMo and NW, and any others who drop by, why is it only Lar and LHVU who are enforcing the restriction on involved admins from acting as admins in these enforcement actions? Why aren't you two helping move Stephan and Polargeo's comments from the "Results" section? If either one of you were to do that, even once, it would end the entire dispute immediately, because Stephan and Polargeo would realize that they weren't going to be allowed to get away with disrupting the forum. If you two, BozMo and NW, have moved Stephan's and Polargeo's comments from the section, then I apologize for my presumption. Cla68 (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lovely two of Lar's strongest supporters and offwiki chums (Cla and LHvU) put their particular spin on things. I think you must be having your own little joke between yourselves that you have managed to stick a cabal label on truly independent editors whilst you act so strongly together. Polargeo (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Presuambly because they don't believe Lar's assertions of non-involvement, or don't accept his assertions of Stephans involvement William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is just a load of nonsense it is based on Lar backed up by his regular supporters setting the standards. That is why an arbcom case judgement is needed. If any of them had actually looked at my edits instead of just having a knee jerk reaction that because I had a major disagreement with Lar's position with regard to WMC plus some article overlap I was therefore obviously "cabal" then they would have seen a neutral independent editor who was not primarily on wikipedia for climate change edits in any way. Unfortunately the inevitable CC battleground reaction kicked in from Lar and his supporters (ATren, Cla, The locust and LHvU being the prime candidates - don't ask me to provide diffs the page isn't long enough). Polargeo (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Franamax Involved

As User:Franamax has been busy telling arbcom that I am involved based on the fact that I have ever edited CC articles ([1],[2]) I thought I should point out that he has added more text specifically on CC than I ever have. See his addditions [3], [4], [5]. These make him clearly involved by Lar's standards. I think Lar is wrong with his standards but we cannot have admins setting restrictions that just benefit themselves. Polargeo (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to Lar moving his comments up a section. Polargeo (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

[6], [7] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

redacted stuff removed Jesus man just give it a rest mark nutley (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to MN's WP:PA a personal attack by me against MN has been narrowly averted by a rare injection of common sense , oh and the fact that I let personal attacks slide off my back like water off a duck rather than starting RFE's every time. Or adding lists of dubious diffs to Arbcom cases. Polargeo (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Come on. If I move Lar's or Franamax's comments I will be punished by Lar's supporters. Lar should not continue as uninvolved with regard to WMC (at least until the arbcom judgement) and Franamax should not be commenting as uninvolved at all by Lar's self defined standards. Let us have some consistancy here. Polargeo (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Diffs of a single substantial edit from last September? Any signs of that edit being part of a controversy along factional lines? Come on, this looks like a bit of a POINT violation. If you yourself think the criterion that would stamp him "involved" on this basis is wrong, then it's not much use pressing for it here, is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • This is the whole point. I do have a problem that Lar seems to have defined where the boundary lies, and it is at a place that suits himself. If you can find such a substanital edit directly on climate change from me such as Franamax has made then I would be very impressed. Some consistancy is needed here to prevent this becoming a Lar fiefdom. Can you find a single one of my article edits that comes as close to peddling climate change views as this single edit by Franamax? I actually think on this particular issue Lar is involved and Franamax is not but if we apply the Lar criteria that he uses regularly to remove opposition to himself then Franamax is involved. I just notice Lar does not apply this criteria when an ally comments on any situation. Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I guess that is the whole WP:POINT then. Your argument may well be right (or not, I have no idea personally, I'm neither familiar with your history in this domain nor with Fran's), but whatever the merits of the argument, this way of pursuing it is sorta the textbook example of WP:POINT tactics (i.e. arguing an issue not because you're convinced of it but in order to reduce ad absurdum somebody else's position). Please drop that, it's not productive. That said, I've gone on record myself saying that Lar shouldn't act as an admin here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I am not presently here on the talkpage based on WP:POINT, if I was trying to disrupt I would be moving Lar's comments myself so please do not dismiss my arguments based on POINT. I am here trying to argue a case that is being consistently ignored whilst admins allow Lar to move other admin's comments on whim and define who is uninvolved himself whislt commenting on cases he should clearly not be, without so much as a peep from other admins. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you think it`s a PA, it`s not. It is pointing out that these continued rants against lar are pointless and reflect badly on you. Leave it for the Arbcom case to sort out mark nutley (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Mn: Of course it was a personal attack, so you might please consider stopping it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It was no more of a PA than ChrisO's comment - and it is unseemly for you focus only on issues coming from one side of the argument, and ignoring the same from the other side. GregJackP Boomer! 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Darn it. I will back you up a hundred percent that WMC should not have refactored your comment, he was completely wrong. Please don't fight every battle with a partisan hat on. Polargeo (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec - to Polar)You and I appear to agree on a number of issues -- other than thinking that "involved" is a magic word here. You have made your point often now (reaching "quite enough" status), and adding more is unlikely to convince anyone at all of much <g>. (appending to MN) - the term "quite enough" applies to this entire topic. Collect (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall also pass on the supplying of diffs, but there are other "uninvolved admins" who have edited CC/AGW pages in the past; 2over0 and BozMo. They were also the admins in situation when I first started adminning, and I found them helpful and courteous. When, later, the practice of discussion between uninvolved admins became common, they were neutral and fair in their commentary and were proactive in working toward a consensus. Thus I never had reason to question their status. (It should be noted, however, that some editors have questioned their neutrality, including the current Arbcom case.) I suggest that uncontroversial edits, plus an apparent desire to work together with other admins to find consensus does not disqualify an admin from participating in that section - but being a major contributor and editing toward a recognised viewpoint, or being being disruptive and combatative otherwise does. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally support your viewpoint. But I must contend that it should not be applied or decided upon by Lar (or you) and it should not rest upon a few article edits. For instance I was never given the opportunity to show that I was fair because when I tried to be so I was opposed Lar. I was put firmly into the involved category simply because I had opposed Lar about his obviously involved status with regard to WMC. Therfore this needs arbcom not LHvU judgement. Polargeo (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, my internet is back on. What a time for it to quit! Polargeo, I don't think you're being helpful here. If you disagree with definitions, it's much better to raise them in a general fashion, rather than engage in point-scoring exercises. I did indeed add text on the relation between ozone depletion and Antarctic temperatures, I saw it in Nature and asked an editor about it before adding it. An editor who I knew had expertise in the area, it was, let me think - oh yes, Polargeo. But why didn't you include this, where I added the section on ice mass balance? You must remember it, you made 12 edits just after, adding sources and rewording it. (And it was a pleasure working with you BTW)

My assessment of you as "involved" revolves largely around two factors. First, you are a researcher in the field (literally) thus I have a reasonable apprehension of bias. That may not be totally fair, I'm sure you'd rather be judged by your on-wiki actions only, but nevertheless going by my "personally willing to sanction" definition of uninvolved, I think it would be a bad scene if you were to block someone in the CC area. The second factor is similarly nebulous: your vocal and continued opposition to the sanctions regime itself. You have expressed your opinion that the regime is illegitimate and was foisted on the community by a small group manufacturing local consensus. I'm not particularly comfortable with the way the sanctions were finalized, I just did my best to give input on the structure at the time. It's unfortunate that you didn't know what was coming down the pipe, it would have been nice to have much more input at the time - but it is what it is and we need to make it work. I don't feel that you have sufficient commitment to upholding the sanctions regime to add input in the "uninvolved" section. Your initiation of this very thread casts doubt on your motives - do you wish a declaration that I am "involved" or do you wish to discuss what "uninvolved" means? Your title indicates you wish a judgement on my status. Your content however seems to be more digging at Lar. Incidentally, I raised the issue of my edits to Antarctica on the very page where the sanctions were discussed and enacted, no-one had a big problem at the time. [8] I think this is closable as: I'm uninvolved; you think Lar is involved; in retrospect, the definition could have been written better in the statement of sanctions. Franamax (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Franamax. You are completely wrong. I am a glaciologist not a climate scientist. Please look at my GA which is based on my research Pine Island Glacier and try to find anything about climate change in that article, or for that matter any one of my newly created articles on glaciers ([[9]]), there is nothing. However, you put in loads of text on climate change into an Featured Article (Antarctica) without citing a single reference. As an Antarctic glaciologist and wikipedian I then had to tidy up these additions, hence my edits, which you were very pleased with at the time. I think this proves that I am here to improve wikipedia not to add a POV. Polargeo (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, where did I say you were a climate scientist? I'm well aware of your work. The PIG has seen increased ice flow in recent times, and this is intimately bound up with global warming. The increased flow may or not be a consequence of AGW, or maybe it's that volcano. It's still an interconnected field, more so than, say, running a machine tool or cutting hair. Please don't rewrite history, go back and look at our discussions on Talk:Antarctica, we were trying to clarify which Antarctic ice could contribute to sea level rise and how likely it is that the ice cuold turn to water. I was very clear at the time that I wrote the section as "free verse" so as to properly outline the concepts, and I sought your input as to veracity and where it would be appropriate to use some of the 2 dozen or so sources I'd assembled on the talk page. Later I added verbiage about the relation between ozone depletion and measured temperature, in the same fashion. Every single word was backed by sources of impeccable quality, which sources I clearly noted on talk. It was a collaborative effort, a successful one that I'm proud of. I think it very much improved a featured article which to this day gives the world accurate and neutral information. I certainly didn't anticipate that you would retrospectively claim you "had to tidy up". Should I simply avoid you in future? I think you are a great editor, I just don't think you should be acting as an admin in climate-related areas. This seems to be straying off-topic, or I'm not sure what exactly the topic is. What resolution do you wish from this thread? Franamax (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All great stuff. But why exactly aren't you "involved"? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I've never expressed an opinion on the "A" in AGW, never added material subject to any dispute whatsoever, never taken a sustained interest in articles remotely close to the issue (save Antartica, where I added facts gleaned from Nature), never had editorial disputes with the main players in the CC arena? Franamax (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If "never expressing an opinion on the A" is a criterion, nearly all qualified editors will count as involved. But note that Lar has expressed such an opinion - so why does that not make him involved? More generally, the requirement to chose between improving articles or administration means we lose every knowledgeable admin for one task or the other. That leaves the ignorant ones, who, not recognizing problems, are under less compunction to fix articles, but also are less able distinguish between constructive and destructive contributions. I do not find this a healthy recipe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Franamax, you should know that their definition of "involved" is "having any opinion whatsoever that is counter to their own, including opinions on enforcement". So naturally, in their eyes, you are. ATren (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you read what you reply to? If yes, read again. If no, please indicate this so that people are not confused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz: That's quite an ironic comment considering ATren's post was addressed to Franamax. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I usually tend to resist linear thinking along the lines of "If A is B, then C must be B as well" and try to look at this kind of thing as "on-balance". IMO Lar is a known quantity and has expressed a consistent and cogent viewpoint. I can deal with that. On the general issue, it seems to be the nature of the beast. You go through a week of hell at RFA, then it gets worse. It's distressing enough to have to sit back from fixing an article because you are riding herd on squabbling editors. Then you have the attempts to paint you as involved simply because you have become familiar with a dispute and take a stance on the underlying behaviour. I think it just comes with the territory of adminship beyond page moves and deleting CSDable articles. I know that right now I'm thinking of calling Telus up and asking them to re-disconnect my DSL line. :) Franamax (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@F: that is nice. When has PG done these things? @AT: do you think you could leave out the waste-of-time snarking? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've outlined quite clearly above the main factors I consider to arrive at my definition for Polargeo. On balance, I find it much preferable that he not act as an uninvolved admin in this area. Yes, my definitions are flexible - I try to be guided by common sense. Franamax (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You've totally failed to produce a convincing case for PG's involvement. You've invented an arbitrary criterion (research in a related field - so what?). Your own rather un-nice behaviour is in stark contrast to the arbs on this case - see CHL at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Re-Up William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mother Mary an Jozef, people... drop this stuff and go do something else. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very worried if the definition of 'uninvolved' (or 'neutral' for that matter) became, "From what I know, I just can't decide if man is contributing to global warming or not". That sounds to me like either a very biassed or a very uninformed view of the topic. An uninvolved, neutral (or ignorant) point of view is not what we need, it's the application of WP editing policies to the existing, verifiable body of knowledge, and, where relevant, to its critics. --Nigelj (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. I consider myself an "alarmist" with regard to the likely impact, and consider the science pretty settled at this point. That has absolutely no bearing on my involvement or lack thereof, nor should it. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please remove all of Lar's comment with regard to WMC

All of Lar's "uninvolved" comments with regard to WMC are completely untennable until an arbcom decision is made. Yes WMC will likely recieve a ban but for the sake of drama minimisation please remove all of them. Polargeo (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Beat on the messenger would you? WMC is the root cause to these issues. Temporarily ban WMC now and end the disruption. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and ban you too whilst we are at it. That has no bearing on my comment and is the usual smokescreen put up by Lar's supporters. Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral actions versus consensus.

JEHochman has just decided to unilaterally impose a sanction on WMC, in the face of a consensus just about arrived at to do something rather different. I'm not sure that's a productive approach. I've moved my comments on his action from there to here on talk: ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you have consensus for either of these unilateral actions. The latter, especially, seems to be imposing a much more severe restriction on WMC than the consensus here before you decided to act unilaterally. I suggest you participate in the consensus finding process on an equal footing with other uninvolved admins instead of trying to impose things. That's not helpful and might well lead to wheel warring. The sanctions found here using consensus tend to stick. ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not severe to give WMC a break of a few days from the CC melee. ArbCom will post their decision soon, I think. I am planning to give a similar restriction to anybody else who persists in argumentum ad nauseum, wikilawyering, battling or similar behaviors. (I cast my eye towards you. Take the hint.) Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not the sheriff. No one of us is, we use consensus. Stop trying to be one. I suggest you participate in the consensus finding process on an equal footing with other uninvolved admins instead of trying to impose things. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The probation says "any uninvolved administrator". It does not say "a consensus of uninvolved administrators". We already have a severe problem of administrators who's status is ambiguous, and who's participation here is not accepted as objective. Considering that your actions are under scrutiny by ArbCom, that much evidence has been posted alleging bias on your part, I think it is untenable for you to continue participating here as an administrator. Actions by you only breed more conflict, which is not good for the encyclopedia. If you are wise, you will recuse. These pages will not fall apart if you leave. Somebody else will take your place. Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have to remind you, that you yourself are not without critics in this area (raises hand). Glass houses and all that. Arkon (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you link to the relevant section of evidence in the arbitration case? Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That may have been the worse 'hey look over there' I've ever seen. The only reason you aren't there is because you ran for the hills the first time you came under fire. Arkon (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@JEH: I think it's rules lawyering at this point, after months of successfully using a consensus driven process, to insist that you can suddenly come in and unilaterally act. That's true regardless of whether I continue to participate in the uninvolved admin section or not. You are not Mighty Mouse, flying in (without context) to save the day. Stop trying. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think past performance of this board can be held up as a model of success. We'll have a short time to wait until ArbCom renders a ruling. Pressure is building and people are acting even worse than usual. We need to keep a lid on this for just a few more days. (I'd appreciate if you'd do your part by removing your personal insults. It is not acceptable to call somebody "Mighty Mouse".) The insidious thing about these conflicts is that people get excited and say and do all sorts of things the normally wouldn't, but they have trouble seeing themselves objectively. Please, please, please trust your friends when they tell you that you're getting overwrought. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it an insult to say that a person is not a particular thing? That seems rather an odd request on your part. I'm not aware of any of my friends telling me I'm overwrought, although I wouldn't be surprised if you got such input yourself. This is, I think, the third time you've acted unilaterally here, and each time it has been singularly unhelpful. You really ought to stop. I'd be happier to step away for a while if you were participating the way the rest of us do but this sort of thing is worrisome. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I consider it an insult the way you worded it. Is it expensive for you to upgrade the civility of your comment? Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, the probation rules permit administrators to act unilaterally without consensus. That is a subtly different thing from acting unilaterally against an obvious consensus of administrators. This is a minor enforcement request with little actual disagreement about the appropriate sanction. I believe you are needlessly multiplying the drama here. It is not helpful and you should stop. Thparkth (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you involved or uninvolved in the conflict? Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am as uninvolved as they come (and not an administrator). Thparkth (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, so your opinion needs careful consideration. It doesn't matter whether you are an administrator (to me, anyhow). Perhaps I should make clear that my restriction is not based narrowly on the instant thread. It is based on the nature of comments I've seen WMC making around wiki, and the entire history of this conflict. I will consider modifying or removing the sanction if WMC asks me to do so. He may very well see the wisdom in removing himself from the battle for a short time. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So you first unilaterally impose a sanction against the developing consensus of what to do, followed by unilaterally unimposing it if asked by the sanctionee? I think you're getting farther and farther afield now. You are not the boss of all the other uninvolved admins, who have been working here peacably. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(@Jeh) I think in practice several people would benefit from taking a voluntary few days off from CC articles and enforcement at this point. The dramaometer is pointing to "overload". Nothing productive is going to happen until ArbCom publishes the proposed decision. It would be better for many people's wiki-careers if they just backed off of the whole topic area for a little while. The question for those of us who feel this way is, how to offer that advice in a way that does not seem like an attack on those people? And how can they accept it without feeling that they are conceding wrongdoing in some way? Thparkth (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. That's exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps we could give out some "no fault" restrictions saying, "while you may have done nothing wrong, we want you to disengage from the fight on these pages until ArbCom posts a final decision, and we are ready to block you if you refuse to do so". Would you like to assemble a list? Other clearly uninvolved editors are welcome to comment on how we could best implement this (and improve the initial implementation with respect to WMC). Jehochman ^Talk 19:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the suggestion but a couple caveats, both of which I think are reasonable.

First, Timing. Identify an end time, and include a calendar date, with a whichever comes first clause. While I anticipate Arbcom results in a few days, and could support a freeze on CC editing for a few days, if a few days turned into a month or more, it would be untenable. So after defining the event triggering the end of the restriction (whether first or final draft), add a clause that says if that event hasn't occurred in say, 30 days, something else will be considered.

Second Scope. I've voluntarily adopted a no CC article editing ban, but not CC talk. You obviously intend this to cover CC articles. What about talk? What about this sanctions page? What about WP pages such as ANI? (Would it make sense to create special page just to give people a place to vent, and a page that might be archived later, with the ability to mine it for useful comments, should any occur?)

Finally, and independently of how this proposal is structured, please ensure that there are sysops on call when the proposed decision is revealed. It isn't hard to imagine that an editor seeing a proposed long ban might decide to make the most of the time until the ban starts.

As to the list, add me to the list. While I've worked hard to be neutral, and hope I've been a positive contribution to the CC area, I predict that if editors are allowed to self-decide their status, the list will be quite short. SPhilbrickT 20:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing not to edit CC articles and talk pages (excepting ArbCom discussion) provided that everyone else (in both factions) are under the same restrictions. GregJackP Boomer! 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've highlighted this problem before. We have a probation that is specifically intended to encourage administrators to take action in this area, yet some administrators have persistently misinterpreted the clearly worded probation so as to mean the opposite: to wit, that no administrator may take action in the area without first jumping through extra bureaucratic hoops. This is wrong, and I do hope the arbitration committee will say so clearly and provide clarification. Actively hampering administrative action in an area that badly needs it is very counter-productive. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the question of unilateralness and all that for the moment, just a question of clarification to Jehochman: do you intend this ban (or the others) to last all the time until the final decision of the arbs? Because you were talking somewhere of "a few days". But the way Arbcom has been working, "a few days" is a realistic timeframe until the first draft. Until the posting of the actual decision, we are probably talking several weeks, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it as until the decision, not until the first (or subsequent) draft. GregJackP Boomer! 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should apply a "no fault" sanction to a list of editors (including WMC), asking them not to touch any CC pages (except arbitration) until a decision is rendered. If it takes ArbCom too long to reach a decision and this restriction becomes more onerous than we had intended, we can lift the restrictions. We do our part to end the conflict, and ArbCom should be expected to do their part. How about we allow a voluntary sign up. If need be, uninvolved administrators may add names to the list. Jehochman ^Talk 19:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly uninvolved in the whole climate matter though I started following it a week or so ago, and FWIW, I think the whole matter is currently miles beyond ridiculously out-of-hand. It looks like Jehochman's sanction is a bit of a shift in gears, as far as administration. If so, then it does suck that there has to be a "first victim", but I think the project is better off if it becomes known that decisive administrative actions (such as Jehochman's) could become the new norm. BigK HeX (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also .... I think it's kinda nuts that there's not more solid information on when ArbCom's decision will be rendered since the last update (AFAIK) seemed to indicate a decision was imminent two weeks ago. The "pending" decision seems to be a reason cited for people to wait on a lot of things. BigK HeX (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Define "reasonable time", when that is cleared, i'll sign up. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks should be more than enough. I hope it would be much shorter. Jehochman ^Talk 19:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That is reasonable - i've signed myself up. [btw. you may want to clarify whether talk pages in CC and GC/CC pages are included] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that if the arbitration committee moves enforcement to WP:AE then some folk will be in for a very rude awakening. The history of this page is one of slow decisions resulting in insufficient and ineffectual sanctions. Moreover, the willingness of some administrators to engage in protracted debate with overtly factional editors and to indulge rather than sanction the continuation of battleground behaviour during enforcement requests is largely the cause of those administrators' current and recurring difficulties. I completely support Jehochman's recent action and the principle that he may take similar action without any requirement for debate prior to such action. CIreland (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish my comments above would had said it as well as you've done here, CIreland. BigK HeX (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sign up for the CC restriction

I hereby agree not to touch any CC pages until ArbCom renders a decision (within a reasonable time: two weeks), and any uninvolved administrator may warn or block me if I fail to keep this obligation.

1. --GregJackP Boomer! 20:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but the conditions have changed - with the restrictions not be in effect on WMC, I'm not willing to remove myself from editing on CC articles. Subject to my completing a GAR on one article that I was otherwise uninvolved with. Completed GAR, am now completely off CC/GW pages. 17:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Since some of the AGW group are going to game this and use it to change assessment based on improper reasoning, I withdraw my agreement. 06:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
2. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
3. ATren (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
4. User:Sphilbrick --SPhilbrickT 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Polargeo (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
6. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
7. I may work on a draft CC article in user space, but I won't touch main space. Cla68 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
8. TS 01:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Moral support, though I disengaged several months ago and don't intend to return.
9. I pledge ZERO reverting. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Subject to the qualification Climate articles that are not part of the CC conflict are not included as noted below William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Noting that I do not edit CC article pages, and very rarely CC article talk pages, I am very keen to again step away from acting or commenting on the Probation enforcement pages and those ArbCom case pages that still allows input (if any). My talkpage remains open for other editors to use, even for CC/AGW related comment, because my understanding of the admin remit will not permit me to close that avenue for providing assistance, and I may comment at Lar's page if I feel the hectoring is becoming too onerous. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
12. I've been avoiding controversial areas, so will continue to do so and will specifically meet the clarifications currently given below. There are a couple of other points of clarification to be raised in discussion, but not a deal breaker. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
13. This is a good idea. Just stay away from the articles about the polemics, the notorious CC BLP articles etc. Other articles are ok., provided the edits are directly about the science. When you see that a text needs to be backed up using a citation from anything other than a non-controversial peer reviewed climate science journal article, don't put that text in a Wiki article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Sure, all should sign on to this. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Just found this. I'm going to de-watchlist everything related to climate change (although I'm not particularly active). Wake me up when something happens. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Placement on the list is not an admission of fault. Voluntarily placing one's own name on the list may be viewed as a sign of good faith.

Clarifications

• Talk, template, file, and every type of pages (except userspace) are included. A nice peaceful break is what you are signing up for.
• Editing of articles about meteorology, geography, or climate in ways that do not provoke climate change controversy are allowed. Follow the spirit of your pledge by avoiding controversy.
• Working on content drafts in one's own userspace is fine.

Discussion

• Question, is this until the case closes or until a proposed decision is posted? Cla68 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It would be simplest if it was until the case closed, but I don't think that will be two weeks. I would suggest the voluntary restriction should be until a proposed decision is posted or two weeks (whichever is sooner). Once a proposed decision is posted, some people will be too busy discussing that to do much else. Some will drift off and want to get back to whatever they normally do. At the point the proposed decision is posted, I would suggest re-visiting this voluntary agreement and extending it until the case closes for those named in the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of those signatures are meaningless. TGL is already banned. GJP has never shown any interest in improving any of the articles, ditto ATren William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please retract. I have very clearly shown an interest in bring balance to the articles that is currently sorely lacking. You are not AGF. GregJackP Boomer! 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My role in this topic area is and always has been to highlight your abuses, and in that sense my involvement has been a net improvement. See Fred Singer, for example, where the article was improved significantly by others after I revealed evidence of your POV pushing there over the course of 2 years. ATren (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This can make it possible to stick to a more limited restriction where you don't edit the articles on the front line of the dispute with sceptics and edit other articles instead. If e.g. you don't have to argue that the "hockey stick illusion" is a bad source (because Cla68 won't raise this), then that leaves you with more time to work on articles that are about the technical aspects of climate science. Count Iblis (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate articles that are not part of the CC conflict are not included, as Count suggests. Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a potentially valuable initiative. But let me make it perfectly clear that I will not even consider signing up until JEH lifts his purported obligatory ban on me, which I reject as invalid. Enforced consent is not "voluntary" and I cannot meaningfully partipipate in the above at the present time William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, he has. [10] and [11]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I signed up for the list under the understanding that WMC was placed on an editing restriction. If this is not the case, i will remove my name from the list. GregJackP Boomer! 00:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Participation should not be conditional. You are doing the right thing to help Wikipedia solve this problem by joining the list. That reflects well on you. The choices somebody else makes should have no bearing. WMC is free to join the list, and he may do so, or he might just avoid the conflict, or he might make provocative edits. Whatever choices he makes, we will deal with them appropriately. I undid his restriction because I thought it was unfair he didn't have a chance to join of his own free will. Please let him have time to consider his options without applying any pressure. Jehochman ^Talk 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If he is sanctioned or joins voluntarily, I'll re-add my name. When someone is sanctioned, it should stick, but he doesn't accept anyone's authority to tell him anything, and when defiant, he gets away with it. Sorry, but that's the way I view it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You should reconsider, GJP, and re-sign the pledge. Jehochman has done an absolutely superb job of forcing Connolley into a position where he is forced to either (a) submit to what Jehochman originally demanded of him either explicitly by signing the pledge himself or implicitly by avoiding conflicts as Jehochman points out below, or (b) showing he remains his own man by continuing to be provocative. The arbitrators will take note of any decision he makes in this regard I am sure.

Either way he demonstrates his true colors and now that Jehochman has acquiesced to the consensus on the talk page and lifted the restriction he had imposed, Connolley's decision will be of his own free will. If you wish to insure that Connolley has to comply the best thing you can do is resign the pledge yourself so that you don't give cover to Connolley for not signing. --174.42.215.32 (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. Since I notified WMC, he has not made any edits that I would consider provocative. You should do what is right for you, without regard to what is right for him. Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Greg. It shouldn't matter what WMC does or not. You should voluntarily refrain from editing the CC articles out of a sense of honor, ethics, and the self-knowledge that you are here to build an encyclopedia, not fight over the perceived editorial slant in any topic. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree. When a supposedly uninvolved admin that only warns or sanctions the side that is trying to bring balance to the articles and ignores incivility and other actions on the activist faction side, and then threatens to block me because I point it out, and the de facto leader of the activist faction skates on his conduct, I note that conduct. Where I come from, that dog won't hunt. Cla68, I know that you mean well, but I don't worry about my sense of honor and ethics. I know who I am and what I stand for, so I'll go my own way on this, and, unlike some others, I will pay the consequences for my errors and will fight for what is right. My people are used to doing that, often outnumbered, often losing, but never losing sight of who they are. None of my people have ever rolled over and played dead when they knew they were right, from Tomah to Oshkosh to Shu'Nuni'U to Deer. I can do no less. GregJackP Boomer! 03:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit soap box-y. How about toning that down. Minor4th 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY ;p (as to not feeding, not as to vandalism) GregJackP Boomer! 21:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

;p yourself! Minor4th 23:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Stephan: thank you, yes JEH now has, I agree [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question, from what I've seen it's apparently ok to continue somewhat controversial discussion on user talk pages, and some editors who've not signed up yet have been voting on an article merger proposal. Are these sort of edits acceptable? Confirmation in the clarification section would be helpful. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions appear entirely voluntary, so it seems to me that if you sign up, part of what you are agreeing to is that if others don't sign up and carry on, say by voting on a merge proposal, you will have to grit your teeth and sit back. Remember it's not possible to permanently damage the encyclopedia, it can all be fixed later. Part of this initiative is that it will become more clear who is willing to work in a spirit of cooperation and who will carry on regardless. Not sure about user talk pages though, maybe that could be an additional opt-in? If it's voluntary, it's pretty much up to you, isn't it? Do your own edits stir up trouble, or help to calm it? Franamax (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, just a question that puzzled me but no doubt it will all work out. My edits have aimed to calm troubles,[13] with some success, so my motto remains "Abwarten und Tee trinken". . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it just meant mainspace, Dave, but if you'd like a stricter interpretation, such as on others user talk pages, I'm fine with that. Like I said though, I may work on a CC article or two within my own userspace and think that it's fine for anyone else to do so also. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla68, sure, that's good. I'll just avoid discussing controversial issues on user talk pages, and am content that there's some flexibility in this. . . dave souza, talk 06:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

dave souza: I suspect no one is going to post "My edits have aimed to stir up troubles, with some success". :) Even if they had the introspective ability to realise that is what some of their edits did. So, perhaps you won't be surprised to hear that there is not universal agreement that your edits have been universally helpful. For example, this one making unfounded accusations against others, set off quite a wrangle. But if you've turned a new leaf since then, great. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Lar that is just completely unneccessary mean spirited sniping against one whom you regard as "faction" and you wonder why people don't think you should admin this area. Polargeo (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there's value in pointing out unhelpful sanctimoniousness. You may not agree. Doesn't make it mean spirited to do so. You ought to broaden your focus, instead of always swiping at me. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with this last comment. Lar, perhaps you can elaborate exactly how "there's value" in 1)your first remark directed at Dave and 2) your second remark, responding to Polargeo, especially your labeling of Dave's comment as "unhelpful sanctimoniousness." If you decide to address this, I'd request that you focus on relating your comments to your self-professed role as an "uninvolved administrator." Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@Count Ibis. I don't believe that this meets the intent nor the spirit of the voluntary restriction. It allows one side of the equation to edit, without providing anything to balance it and eliminate a AGW POV position. As was shown by the Climategate emails (and which were not addressed by the investigations), there has been a concerted effort to keep counter-claims out of peer-reviewed articles, so that allows one-sided editing. It's your choice of course, but my view is that your disclaimer nulifies the purpose of the voluntary restriction. JMO. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In practice, there hasn't been any dispute about specific texts based on the peer reviewed climate science literature here on Wikipedia, except for a few incidents over the last few years when someone editing from an environmentalist activism perspective with a poor understanding of the sources had to be reverted several times by William, Stephan and the other regulars. The dispute here on Wikipedia is actually quite narrowly focussed around the articles that make meta-statements about the science.

E.g., as you point out, there are claims made by sceptics that the peer review process has been perverted. And you can then have counterclaims on e.g. the Real Climate Blog. What I'm saying is that if we avoid any edits that would require sourcing from anything other than regular climate science articles, you won't get these sorts of polemics in Wikipedia. Another example: what has been one of the largest flashpoints on the Global Warming article from 2004 to 2008 leading to perhaps 100 pages of talk-page discussions, was the use of the word "few" in a sentence that says that there are a few climate scientists who disagree with the consensus on climate change. This is again a meta statement about the science. Although one can cite this from a peer reviewed essay by Oreskes, this is not a regular climate science article. Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis, with all due respect, I disagree. The problem is not over the peer reviewed articles as sources, it is about the fact that the activist AGW group wants to ban all other RS (print media for example) as WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE to exclude any significant minority view to the point of using the no-longer valid WP:SPOV standard. The articles in general no longer have a WP:NPOV. If the purpose of this is to shut down the controversy, it means no edits to the articles and talk pages in question. Your statement just gives control of the articles to the activist AGW group and silences those of us that believe in NPOV. Otherwise, it would be just as simple for me to put in my signing statement that I agree not to edit the articles with the exception of adding statements from media sources that are generally accepted in the rest of Wikipedia as a reliable source, including the WSJ, NYT, Fox, etc. All I would do with that is to negate the purpose of signing up, and make it pointless. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Greg's right. If you're going to stay away, stay away. Don't try to slip in something counter to the spirit into your pledge. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Greg's right. He just had to complete his GA review and pass an article on perhaps the most prominent skeptic book (The Real Global Warming Disaster) first whilst many other people were sworn off editing and now he is really off climate change and criticizing others for not being true to their vows. To quote Lar just three minutes before he made the comment above this I think there's value in pointing out unhelpful sanctimoniousness. Yes true Lar but only if it is "THE FACTION". Polargeo (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, I thought you took the pledge? That included these pages, I thought, based on the narrative (everything except ArbCom). To be sure this is a more widespread comment as it applies to others as well... whether this page is exempt or not is unclear. Or did your pledge not include taking swipes at me? Really, widen your focus from your somewhat unhealthy obsession. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there a Wikipedia policy that prevents a "skeptic book" from being a GA? Or does that go against the unwritten rules somehow? Can only pro-AGW articles make GA status? If you disagree with the review, please let me know where it went wrong. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 21:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Polargeo was objecting not to the fact that the book is skeptical, but to the idea of people signing in and out of the sanction depending on the needs of the moment. Polargeo can clarify which of us better understands his intent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I understood that, and I've explained it above. My original signing in of the sanction was with the understanding that WMC was under a similar, but involuntary sanction. When that sanction was voluntarily lifted by JEH, I made it very clear that I would not voluntarily stay on the list if WMC was not also on the list (voluntarily or involuntarily). While off the list, I started the GAR, which had been languishing for a couple of months. On WMC voluntarily signing up, I signed back up for the sanctions, with the proviso that I would complete the GAR that I was in the middle of - it is not fair to the article creator, the editors that worked hard on it, and the article itself to start that process and then put it on hold indefinately. As soon as I finished that, I noted it here, and I might note that I could have just not signed back in at all until it was complete. I did it the way I did for transparency, to have everything in plain view - which I knew would likely bring some criticism. I don't have a problem with that, and Polargeo has the perfect right to point it out and to criticize me for that. I accept that criticism as a constructive effort and I certainly don't bear any ill-will over it. As to the comments I made on the GAR, it seemed to me that he had an issue with the GAR since it was a book on the other side of the issue so to speak, and I felt that needed clarification. Further, although I didn't mention it earlier, I have not said that anyone wasn't true to their vows, and I didn't bring up anyone that had violated what they agreed to do (or not do). I pointed out what I felt was a proviso made by Count Iblis that negated the purpose of the voluntary restriction. It is up to him to decide whether my point is valid or not, and I clearly stated that it was "just my opinion" - he has not, as far as I know, violated anything that he has agreed to. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is why i did not sign up to this, i know i am going to get a topic ban from arbcom but until that actually happens i intend to stop abuse like this He is one of the foremost internet global warming denialism|global warming denialists that`s nice and neutral for a BLP right? or how about using blog posts and twitter as a source? this is exactly what will happen once all those whom edit from a NPOV are banned, until i am i shall continue to stop such abuse mark nutley (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, the entire world isn't going to come to a screeching halt simply because a questionable claim remains in a article for a few days. The voluntary sign-up isn't forever, and it isn't much of a restriction if it means one refrains from editing, except when one wants to edit. The twitter source issue is more nuanced than you imply—Twitter is allowed in certain circumstances. While I don't think this circumstance meets the standard, I can understand why others might hold a different opinion. Mark, one of the problems is that I think you are right on the merits, but a bull in a china shop approach makes it tough to support. --SPhilbrickT 13:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe i am to bull in a china shop but then again had i used a forum post or a twitter post i know full well what would happen to me, and SA should have known better than to use those as sources for BLP information. I know as soon as i am topic banned these articles will be ruined, the POV pushers will destroy any semblance of neutrality in them, we have seen it done on plenty of sceptic BLP`s now for years and the rest will follow suit. Look at the talk page of the hockey stick illusion for instance, you have editors there demanding that anyone who gave a review is identified as working for big oil or some right wing think tank, for no other reason than to try and discredit those people. It is wrong, plain and simple. I did an article about mike hulmes book, yet you see nobody there demanding the people who reviewed it get labels planted on them, i wonder why that is? mark nutley (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to note two things. The first one is that William would not have signed up if he was supposed to stop editing all climate change articles. Then he could have continued editing the articles that are generating the trouble here, perhaps leading to this deal to collapse. Another thing to note is that we don't have a conflict here where e.g. William edits some technical article and sticks purely to the science which then leads to someone else editing a response to that by sceptics in that or another article.

If this were the case, then GregJackP would have a point about this deal allowing one side to "continue to fight under the cease fire". But this is not the way the conflict here on Wikipedia manifests itself, partially because the real world conflict doesn't play out this way either. E.g., you won't see FOX NEWS on WSJ directly challenge some particular Nature article or e.g. the Arctic Oscillation. Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say singling out one editor for making clear what he is signing up for is wrong since others have also made comments about what they plan on editing if they sign up too. Second, is it possible to get a list of the hot articles that shouldn't be edited? Looking at the contributions of the editors who are commenting here, it's hard for editors to tell what articles are involved in this timeout request. I comment occasionally with hopes of helping but I am not involved at all. I cannot tell if anyone is breaching their promises by signing the above or not without a list of articles. I'm sure I'm not the only one who lurks or comments occasionally who are having the same problem. Third, when does or did this go into effect? Just some thoughts I hope might help, at least I hope so.  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• marknutly's right. The list is a bad idea because there is factional editing taking place, so it doesn't matter if an individual signs up on the list when others in the faction remain unhindered in their POV edits. SA is trying to get a good article delisted based on his misapplication of WP:FRINGE and making up new criteria for good article review, all to push a POV and suppress discussion and legitimization of views that question the "consensus." This has to stop. Minor4th 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

@Minor4th, your point of view suggests there has to always be a continuing battle. Yes SA has very strong views on fringe, but he is not primarily a CC editor, he is an anti-fringe editor and I have crossed paths with him myself before. I would advise MN not to fight with him as everything can be sorted out in better more constructive ways, why not set an example? Maybe a midway point between MN and SA would be a good outcome (I'm not suggesting a genetic mix of the two though!). Polargeo (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The list would be a bad idea if it were permanent or even long-term. One doesn't enter into a negotiation by permanently conceding something valuable without getting something in return, but one can enter a negotiation with a show of good faith which only creates a temporary disadvantage. I'm as anxious as the next editor to see the ArbCom decision, but what's the worst case outcome if one side does more editing than the other for a few days? A GA loses its status for a few days? Think longer term. Five years from now, editors will still be talking about the epic ArbCom CC issue, but will anyone remember that some GA lost its status for a few days? That wouldn't even make a good trivia question.--SPhilbrickT 18:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed trying to set a better example by discussing it on the talk page where it is taking place, and I have tried to edit these articles in a neutral way -- I've made edits that could be seen as supporting both sides. I'd like to see the extremes eliminated in these articles on both sides, but marknutley's point is a good one in that you cannot allow one extremist to run roughshod over articlespace while the countering extremist views are all voluntarily on a stand down. Minor4th 18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure people are getting the idea here. The list is a voluntary commitment for one's own part to do something else for awhile, to step back, disengage, regain perspective, etc. If you want to do that, sign up. If not, don't. Saying "Well, I would sign up, but if I stop editing then the other team goes a man up"... that's a continuation of the kind of thinking that the list is designed to correct. If you really feel that your presence on these articles is indispensable to Wikipedia as a counterbalance to abuse, then don't even bother messing around in this section. I would rather see zero discussion and just a simple signup, rather than a lengthy section in which people try to play the angles. If you want to attach conditions, then you don't need to go on about them here - just do it. Set your own conditions and hold yourself to them. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Just do what you're going to do and there's no need to announce it or negotiate. Minor4th 20:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuck work items

We have a couple of stuck work items:

• NW's announcement and subsequent discussion seems stuck. There seems to be a consensus (one I'm not part of, I opposed it, but I think it's there) but not an actual wrap up.
• The proposal regarding WMC, which I recused from further participation in, so forgive the meta comment, seems stuck as well. I view it having a potential consensus there, maybe.

Perhaps some uninvolved admin could wrap these up? I thought The Wordsmith was going to but he didn't. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

'Article tags' was closed with summary without consensus of uninvolved admins

On August 2nd, NuclearWarfare announced a new sanction against adding or removing any tags listed here.[14] On August 6th, The Wordsmith changed NuclearWarfare's sanction to only prohibit the adding of tags but allowing the removal of tags.[15] I immediately pointed out to The Wordsmith that they changed the meaning of NuclearWarfare's sanction[16] which was backed up by admin Lar.[17] Despite these objections and without attempting to reach consensus with the other uninvolved admins, The Wordsmith has closed this RfE without addressing their significant change in NuclearWarfare's sanction.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)