User talk:2over0

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

GoRight's block

2/0, please unblock GoRight.

At the beginning of the year, whilst most of us were away from our computers, a small group of climate change editors set up a new forum and called it, "Climate Change Probation." The idea was proposed by a boy who appears to be in his early 20s, probably too young to have ever even had a job.

Whilst the intentions of some involved may have been good, there was no authorisation from the Wikipedia Foundation or ArbComm to do this, and since many of the editors involved in setting it up are POV pushers from the warmist camp, it is natural that skeptics are offended and will react to it.

(As for what would work, as far as fixing the corruption & poisonous atmosphere within the climate change pages, it would be mediation by parties known by both sides, advocates & skeptics, to be neutral. Neutral here would mean, an editor who has never shown any interest in the climate change debate, but he would likely suppose that the IPCC is probably right. Both sides would agree to the mediation. This much is common sense, but unfortunately, it seems, the warmist camp, with too much admin power taken too liberally, couldn't help themselves and have set themselves up as mediators in their own dispute with the skeptics. Honestly, this must look far, far worse to the general public than anything found in the Climategate letters. Whereas the IPCC is merely waning in credibility as a result of a number of scandals, Wikipedia appears corrupt to the core.)

I don't, personally, want anything to do with the climate change probation, given its illegitimacy, so I have largely just ignored it. Others have reacted differently, and that is understandable.

However, GoRight immediately objected, and, sure, he has reacted badly since. So it looks like he was provoked by the community with climate change probation in the first instance, and now is now banned less than 20 days later by the very same climate change probation, after reacting. This is, of course, what everyone expected probation to turn out to be: a weapon to be used against skeptics, rather than the real problem editors, POV pushers from either side.

I believe that you are, yourself, sincere in trying to fix the climate change pages, and so I appeal to you here: this block needs to be lifted. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that your depiction of the climate change probation, and particularly how it came about ("a boy ... probably too young to have ever even had a job" - WTF?), is complete fantasy. If you want anyone to take you seriously I think you have to do a lot better than that. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll note as an aside that this user's recent comments on GoRight's block have not exactly been a model of restraint: [1]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Although to be fair, they deleted that comment between when I saw it and when I might decide the best way forward from there. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but it seems pretty clear where this user is coming from. I suspect that this will be a self-correcting problem though - if he acts as he says he's doing (i.e. ignoring the probation) then he will end up getting blocked or topic-banned before too long. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you asked GoRight a question related to an exchange between him and me in which he parroted my words back at me [2]. I don't think that was really much of a problem. I just calmly asked him what he meant and then fixed my wording to remove the possibility of my words being misinterpreted. As that was a discussion on his talk page and if anything he would have felt under pressure and not I, I think it was well within acceptable parameters. I'm grown-up enough not to hold someone in high dudgeon for being a bit sarcastic. Not an ideal response to an editor coming to you with serious concerns, but then again not problematic in itself. The issue on which I wanted to express my concern was more important, both then and now. This was GoRight's creation of a pretty big essay on the Pcarbonn ban into the page at WP:AN. I don't think GoRight is intrinsically difficult to interact with, as long as you accept that he tends to adopt a fairly antagonistic style. As you're no doubt aware he isn't alone in these problem areas in adopting a battleground mentality. --TS 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@AH: I am aware of the problems surrounding the genesis and implementation of the climate change probation, but I think it has rather more support from the community and ArbCom than you indicate - [3], [4]. Disclosure: while I do not think I was the first to suggest such a solution, I argued for something similar to this probation in the first of the preceding links. That said, I did not invoke the discretionary sanctions in my blocking rationale. I am currently working with a few other editors to hash out a set of conditions under which they may continue to contribute to the project. Creative ideas that do not create an undue burden of enforcement are particularly welcome. @TS: Thank you for your perspective on your discussion, I will take it into consideration. I had read that exchange as considerably less productive than you describe. I think one of the problems with the battleground mentality is the stick (banning/blocking) is much more visible than the carrot (satisfaction at having contributed to the best encyclopedia possible). When editors start antagonizing each other, it seems that most people either get in on it or leave - what we need is some way to break the cycle, and catch and defuse it wherever it starts. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if my intervention at that point was soured by the misconceived enforcement request I had filed against GoRight the previous week. In retrospect it might have looked as if I was just looking for an excuse to have him censured. Since then as you know GoRight has increasingly perceived me as an enemy. My position (as outlined elsewhere) is that I want him editing articles and commenting on talk pages, but I want him to be talking about the topic, not the people. If he wants to talk about the people he should follow dispute resolution. I think we're all on the same page with this. We just need to build trust in the possibility of a solution. --TS 23:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

2over0, you said it all "the stick (banning/blocking) is much more visible than the carrot (satisfaction at having contributed to the best encyclopedia possible) to make the carrot visible, I been looking into gestalt coaching principles. When unknown editors are viewed as potential assets to be grown rather than whipped into compliance, then Wikipedia's potential will grow too. Each crack of the whip, takes a toll on the whole community and should be conducted prudently, an effectively. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0, if GoRight has been blocked for having a battleground mentality, you need to check out my talk page. This is what I put up with daily due to the perception that I am a climate change skeptic. Right now, three editors are harassing me for the remark I made about Ryan's photo. William M. Connolley is demanding an apology for "grotesque" incivility whilst in the same breath telling me that my conversation there with Ryan is "pathetic". I wonder, what on earth has this got to do with William anyway? Then Stephan Schulz came along and added some pointy sarcasm, and finally, Tony Sidaway warned me that I am not allowed to make personal remarks on my own talk page. (Um, what?) Are they going to be warned in turn? I don't think so. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As indicated by the level of activity at this page lately, I am currently somewhat overextended. This is precisely the sort of dispute that takes the longest to review, but failing to investigate the relevant background would be a disservice to all involved and an abuse of my position as an uninvolved administrator. Please escalate the issue to the appropriate noticeboard (probably WQA, from your description) if the matter cannot be resolved amicably at usertalk. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest unblock request

I am troubled that the substance of GoRight's latest unblock request does not comfortably line up with his recent conduct. He appears to be continuing to do his very best to encourage, direct, and inflame disputes despite being confined to his talk page. Ten hours before the unblock request ([5]) GoRight was endorsing the misuse of the climate change probation enforcement talk page by ZuluPapa5 as a platform for harrassment and namecalling directed at his perennial target, William M. Connolley: [6]. He is apparently watching quite closely, as he was the first to notice ZP5's violation of 3RR on that page and encouraged him to self-revert to keep his edit warring within the letter of 3RR: [7].

Encouraging vexatious misuse of dispute resolution pages and gaming of 3RR limits to enable edit warring is not, to my mind, "mak[ing] use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner", nor does it seem to "place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes. While a sufficiently twisted interpretation could perhaps let his 'guidance' of ZP5 fit around (behind, under) those terms, I would much prefer to see him understanding and abiding by the spirit of his propsed commitments before he is unblocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It was "misuse of the climate change probation enforcement talk page" by WMC [8] which seems to have caused a stir for GoRight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

TOAT, if there was a war by me there as you describe, who was on the other side? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not questioning the sincerity of GoRight's pledge, it would seem far more useful and constructive (to me, at least) to have concrete, specific criteria going forward. Pleasant-sounding but vague and totally subjective pledges to be judicious don't tend to work out very well in these sorts of situations. That's just my 2 cents; the decision isn't up to me. MastCell ^Talk 01:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Making it simple

Seems like GoRight would like to make this simple and move on: User talk:GoRight#What are the terms under which you will allow me to continue editing?. Let me know how I can help? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

2overO, regarding a simple solution, this seems relevant to me, Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_and_sanctions_for_disruption regards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Framework for unblocking GoRight

I would recommend strong, specific conditions for any unblock of GoRight; the framework that you've outlined forms a reasonable basis. While I am sure that GoRight offers his pledges in all earnestness, the fact remains that he has a demonstrated history of falling short of such commitments in the past. The last two (un)blocks in his block log are instructive:

• Unblocked 3 December 2009 (after disruptive editing of Scientific opinion on climate change) with a commitment to pay special attention to WP:CIVIL and avoid further edit warring on the page [9]. Unblocking admin's log entry: "per request and good-faith agreement on user talk page".
• Unblocked 6 January 2010 (after a general, broad pattern of disruptive editing) with the affirmation "OK, upon further reflection and off-wiki advice, message received. I hereby agree to be more constructive." [10]. Unblocking admin's log entry: "per promises to improve behaviour".

Regrettably, since you've had to reblock GoRight for essentially the same problems, it would strike me as counterproductive to unblock without clear boundaries to guide his future contributions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Creative Proposal

Hi .. I appreciate your are being pulled in many directions now a days (seem to show evidence for fairness and I know that takes time) ... when you have some time ... please review the Creative Proposal for GoRight's redemption on his talk page. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

While some degree of lateral thinking is definitely called for in this situation, I do not think that that is the way to go with it. Thank you, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well ... my opinion is Wikipedia is the ideal place to enact Restorative_justice (with restitution agreement) because no one owns anything that would require retributive payment (and retribution could be perceived as retaliatory). In cases where intentions are the key question, then a block may cause a confusing message. The cure should be for the WP:CIVIL offender to demonstrate honorable intentions in some way. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jpat34721

Are you reviewing his reentry into editing the one talk page he was banned from? Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The ban was lifted. See User talk:Jpat34721#Unbanned from Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I am wondering if 2/0 is watching his problematic return to the talk page. If I though he was still banned, I'd just ask a bunch of people to block him. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean now. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, but that was next on my due diligence list. I have high hopes for this one, but I am a cautious optimist. Without having reviewed Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident as of this post, the sorts of clashes my crystal ball predicted should be amenable to the polite collaborative discussion at usertalk method. Hopefully. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Go crazy. I'm inches away from filing another enforcement request. I suggest you inform your charge that copy-pasting a huge list of references without any proposal to use those references or any proposal to make any change to the article is disruptive. I suggest you inform your charge that suggesting the same shit he suggested over and over before he was banned, using the same reasoning over and over from before he was banned that has the same chance of garnering acceptance as before he was banned will lead to him being banned again. It's like he's fundamentally incapable of even considering middle ground. It's tremendously frusterating to finally - FINALLY start watching some headway being made on that article just to find that someone is unbanned just to start being the boulder in the middle of the road. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left a polite message on Jpat's talk page suggesting that he might want to reconsider his approach. I agree that it seems unconstructive, at the very least, but let's see if he's a one-track-mind editor as well as a single purpose account. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what's the problem? He listed sources which indicate that the term "Climategate" has extensive real world sources. Why is this considered a problem? Really, this badgering of editors who don't share the pre-ordained POV has got to stop. 2/0, I certainly hope you treat this frivolous request as you have for such requests from the other side, and topic-ban these 2 editors as you did JPat. ATren (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I article-banned Jpat34721 following discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1#Jpat34721. It will probably be tomorrow before I can catch up on sorting through Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, and related issues. If in the meantime you would like to make a specific enforcement request, please use Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0, if you don't mind, would you please elaborate on your reasons for article-banning JPat? I've looked at that section, and there are only two diffs provided as evidence. Neither is abusive. At worst, this was a 2RR, nothing more, yet you article-banned him for a month. Furthermore, that article ban was used as justification for a block when JPat raised a legitimate COI/N request. I realize your ban has been lifted, but as we can see here, others are still using it as justification to take further action against JPat.

So based on my view of the evidence, I believe your article ban was incorrect. If there's evidence I missed, I'll gladly retract that, but if there was no other evidence, then I think you should retract your action, and admit it was a mistake (or, at least, an overreaction). This would serve to "clear JPat's name" so that editors don't try to use this (IMO) ill-advised ban against him, as they have done here.

Note: I do not assume bad faith in any of this. I realize how difficult this task is, and how easy it is to misjudge a situation. But I do believe a mistake was made, and if so, it should be corrected. Thanks. ATren (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ATren, I appreciate your comments I really do but I don't think it's productive to rake those coals again. 2over0 and I have reached accommodation after much discussion and I really would hate to see him have to expend more time on this. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand and respect that, JPat, but I'd still appreciate a response from 2/0, perhaps by email to avoid further on-wiki drama. This ban seemed way over the line, and continues to create drama (see above). I think it's important to get to the bottom of it. 2/0, feel free to contact me via email. ATren (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the original ban appeal, Jpat's contributions especially to Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident had come to my attention when I was looking for hotspots in the probation area. The diffs I reviewed included all contributions in the 1—2 weeks preceding the enforcement request. The pattern of diffs is not recorded, but there is extensive discussion here leading up to the partial unban. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rememebr what I complained about last time? The giveaninchtakeamile problem? It's recurred. How would you go about dealing with that? Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my contribution to Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident thus far. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. I would appreciate feedback on what is problematic with any of these. I don't see anything the least bit antagonistic in my remarks. These responses ([20] [21][22][23]) are in my opinion entirely unwarranted and unnecessarily inflammatory. JPatterson (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely do not know how to resolve the general issue here. Pointing to consensus at earlier talk threads works ordinarily, but the continuing unfolding of that topic and the recklessly disputatious atmosphere of discussion there both contribute to making any consensus particularly tenuous and open to reasonable or disingenuous debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not know how to parse this to mean anything except, there is not now and never was a consensus, which means my post was perfectly legitimate (and if you'll read where the discussion went from there, constructive). A collegial editing environment is going to difficult to achieve as long as some editors think the purpose of probation (win,wink, nod, nod) was to give them new weapons to drive the bastards out.JPatterson (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request you cease action on GW probation

2/0, I think you should withdraw from action on the GW probation pages. The JPat action raised concerns for me, and your closing of the WMC request with no action is evidence that you are unable to act with neutrality here. JPat's violations were far less disruptive or abusive than WMC's (or Hipicrite's, for that matter) yet you imposed stronger sanctions on JPat than either WMC or Hipocrite. In addition, even when confronted with your error on JPat, you were very slow in reacting. Then there's the GoRight indef block -- while I do believe there are issues with GoRight, your handling of that has been quite suspect and probably over-reaching given the temperature of these pages.

All of these factors, when taken together, indicate that your attempts at even-handedness have failed, and I am requesting that you withdraw. ATren (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this what has been happening all along, though? Attempts to drive out editors by one side or another, and then (as we saw in the GoRight case with his ideas that somebody who had censured him before must be "involved") attempts to drive out administrators who looked like they would try to stop the fun and games? --TS 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, Tony. 2/0 has clearly demonstrated his non-neutrality here. If I cared, I'd pursue it further, but I no longer do. Eventually it will all come out, the years-long POV push that's been going on at these articles with the blessing of non-neutral admins. I'll look forward to that, but I won't be a part of it. ATren (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think he's a saint for even attempting to make some lasting changes in this wasteland. Do you honestly think that punishing one ex-admin is going to improve the articles? I do not - while sometimes a little hasty, WMC's edits are almost always good in the end. The goal of cleanup has to be a movement beyond the usual cliques ganging up on one person after another, talking endlessly past each other about the same things, and pushing everyone who is not in a camp into one. The problem is with editors whose edits are almost always bad in the end. Ignignot (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That is enough of that, if you please. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The person who has clearly demonstrated non-neutrality in all of this is ATren, with his relentless vendetta William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, only a few hours after being told to be civil WMC is here accusing aTren of a vendetta, real polite boy. mark nutley (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we might stop this descending to the usual bickering? For someone claiming to be concerned about politeness, "boy" is inappropriate. As to the vendetta stuff - ATren has accused me of much the same - I don't see you complaining about that. Can you say "one sided"? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I have no vendetta. 2. Please remind me where I accused you of having a vendetta. ATren (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do i see Atren accusing you here? No, how therefore am i to complain? Has Atren just been asked to be civel? No. The use of Boy is a cultural affection (IE How`s it going boy) and i will use it if i so wish. Accusing me of being one sided when i pointed out that you were being uncivil is just a pointless insult, as it was you my comments were being directed at, not ATren. mark nutley (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother, Mark, you'll be accused of harassment. See my graph below, upper right quadrant. ATren (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I agree with the other editors. Your involvement is clearly disruptive and one sided 2over0. While you maintain an abusive block on GoRight based on dubious and nebulous assertions, you continue to protect William no matter how many times he engages in clear incivility, refactoring, and abusive BLP violating COI editing as evidenced in countless diffs. You've also failed to address the attack pages he keeps in his userspace. This isn't acceptable behavior from an admin.

Even here on this talk page when he makes uncivil accusations telling another editor that they are engaging in a vendetta, after he's been warned repeatedly to stop being uncivil, you ignore his improper behavior. Meanwhile you've accused me elsewhere of "personal involvement". If I've done anything inappropriate please provide diffs. I filed an enforcement request with a diff providing an example of the behavior that needed to be addressed and I notified the editor concerned. I also responded to their posts on my talk page (even though they've been asked to disengage since they don't want me posting on their talk page). I have no personal involvements with other Wikipedians and haven't kissed anyone I've met on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• And now I see that you protected an article [24] with a version that numerous editors have objected to on BLP grounds. Policy indicates that the BLP issues should be resolved FIRST and consensus reached before content that raises BLP issues is restored. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, it was locked because of the edit war over the pic. 2/0 knows it was locked on the wrong version [25] give the guy a break here, he is one of the few admins trying to cover the climate related pages and is overrun. If it was you or me i suspect a lock on the article until the conflict was sorted in talk would have looked like the best option. Lets all try and calm it down a bit, tempers are running high over the latest probation sanction brought against WMC, which i still think was closed prematurely btw :) Hope you don`t mind my butting in ChildofMidnight (is there a short way to do your name btw?) --mark nutley (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is a BLP issue, my understanding is that policy demands that be addressed FIRST, for obvious reasons. And I don't see a consensus for the pic's inclusion based on the talk page discussion so far (I lean towards it being included, but that's not really relevant). You can call me anything you like Mark, as long as it's relatively appropriate. ;) "CoM" is pretty popular. I also think 2over0 needs to explain why clear violations are allowed from one editor while another editor is blocked for nebulous "disruption" accusations. And finally, his claims of "personal involvement" needs to be explained. I am pretty good about trying to avoid interacting with uncivil attackers who want to feud, so it's problematic that 2over0 would launch unsupported attacks on my good faith efforts to get violations of our editing policies addressed by suggesting I'm trying to provoke a conflict. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

The problem with the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley picture is that, while obviously there are better pictures, I take a very conservative view of activating the WP:BLP exception for fear of chilling effects. If another uninvolved admin feels that in this case the potential for harm from that picture is sufficient to warrant removal under the BLP exception, I would not object (please direct them to this post if anyone asks); there are enough good-faith arguments that the picture is policy-compliant that for myself I am not comfortable unilaterally declaring that it is not. You are also free to raise the issue for outside opinions at WP:BLP/N. If you do so, please check the archives for the last time this issue was raised; please also let me know so that I may state the above position.

For an unrelated but similar issue, see Talk:Lawrence Solomon#Environmentalist (2).

Thank you for your understanding, Marknutley. I am trying to self-limit the number of issues I take on, but sometimes a conflict is deceptively complex, and comments elsewhere must wait while I try to tease out the full context. Even so, I would be enormously surprised if there are not still matters of dire importance that I overlook. The WP:GS/CC/RE board helps with that by distributing the diff-searching load, but less so the less focused a discussion becomes. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been raised at BLP/N by another editor. MastCell ^Talk 07:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A good 49 minutes before I suggested it - wow, this new tachyonic interface is really zippy! Thank you for the note, I have now commented there. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Censure of CoM

You admonish CoM here: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Result. This is puzzling because I don't see any prior warnings or concerns brought to his attention, either on his talkpage or on the General Sanction page (short of "next time would you please use the template"). As is you appear to be censuring CoM for filing the request at all, which is inappropriate. I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting. If not, do you think you could remove that part of your statement?--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed their recent contributions as due diligence before commenting on the report, and considered that some form of request to concentrate on improving the articles without personally engaging with other editors would be warranted. I am certainly open to different wording, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I think it should be noted that the filing of requests such as CoM's can be a significant contribution to an article in addressing surrounding problematic edits. If these are your grounds for the ["]admonishment["] I'd like to see it removed entirely.

Also, I want to thank you for trying to work through these climate change articles without bias. It seems they're often avoided by admins as too much of a headache. I'm not particularly happy I came across the "climategate" article myself. Consider this a plaintext barnstar? --Heyitspeter (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

New wording - see if you like it. I most certainly do not want to do anything to discourage those reports, both for due process reasons (better there than here or at some other poor sucker's talkpage) and because distributed monitoring just plain works better. Well, as long as people do not try to bludgeon each other with cherry-picked REs, staying just within the enforcement line while baiting their fellow volunteers, and sending every request into yet another death spiral of bickering; ah well, maybe if this can be tamped down to the point where everyone offers the appearance of good faith then some actual collaboration might slip through the cracks. Also - thank you :). - 2/0 (cont.) 06:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I really like the last wording you posed, and second the editor's comments you linked to. It was really frustrating to see the request phrased in that manner and it cheapened the claims being made. That other editors had to add the diffs needed to make the complaint actionable was ridiculous. In any case, see you around. --Heyitspeter (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because anything worth knowing is worth graphing...

The Pritchard Scale.

This is sort of how I think about things. Any administrative decision can be made by quanitfying an editor's work in AU (arbitrary units) and plotting them on both the X and Y axes. It's sort of like the Pritchard Scale of Wikipedia. People in the top right never come across your desk. People in the bottom left are depressingly common but predictable; you can find them demanding an admin smite their enemy, or complaining about said admin's bias when he is insufficiently quick to smite their enemy. The real challenges are the upper left and the lower right. MastCell ^Talk 06:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear me, I found Dead Poets' Society slash fiction before I got the reference - it has been a deuce of a long time since I saw that movie, and mostly I just remember the book-desecration scene. That is much more elegant than the description I gave at RfA: good-content/bad-conduct editors, bad-content/good-conduct editors, and other complex cases. (On an unrelated note, why have I felt the need to quote that page twice today?)

Adding a third note for a full chord of unrelatedness, I got a drive-by vandal to this page today - these admin perks just keep getting better. To be fair, they might have been following someone else, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Like you need an excuse to read Dead Poets' Society slash fiction. WTF did these folks do before the Internet was invented, anyway? Incidentally, I thought of illustrating the graph with a few representative editors, and went as far as plotting a few of my favorite archetypes before I recognized that the idea would not fly. MastCell ^Talk 07:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Of the three people I know who have admitted having written slash fiction, two work in bookstores and one in a library - ideal venues for meeting fellow bibliophiles. I wonder more about flamewars - has anyone ever Godwined an OpEd column?

The issue as tabulated by Goofus and Gallant. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, people did used to compare the publishers of the Daily Mail to the Nazis. Then again, the Daily Mail actually was pro-Hitler. I think the immediacy of the Internet is a key component in facilitating flame wars. People argued in print back in the day, but when you have to wait a week or two to see your responses, and your adversary's, published, you probably lose interest and start going outside or talking to your family instead of posting obsessive rebuttals. It would be interesting to see a list of the top ten all-time flame wars. I think Gore Vidal-William F. Buckley would be up there. MastCell ^Talk 19:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A graph for admins

The ATren Scale for Admins.

MastCell's graph inspired me to produce one of my own. Here's my take on admins at Wikipedia. The graph shows edit count on one axis and POV on the other. When an admin encounters a conflict, every involved editor falls somewhere on this graph, though the vertical axis is, of course, specific to each admin. For the very best admins, action taken against editors is scattered all around this graph, with the net average hovering around the origin.

Unfortunately, many admins deviate from the ideal. When an editor misbehaves, such admins act according to which quadrant they fall into:

• lower left - the "indef block quadrant" - have to nip them in the bud.
• lower right - the "topic ban quadrant" - indef blocking is not going to fly for someone with their edit count, so a topic ban neatly removes them from the topic in question
• upper left - the "polite warning quadrant" - the editor is gently reminded of the rules of engagement, is directed to relevant policy pages, but ultimately is left with a pat on the back and encouragement to keep editing.
• upper right - the "blame the accuser quadrant" - an upper right editor is highly valued by admins, and is protected at all costs. When such an editor violates policies, it is usually best for the encyclopedia to find out why they did it. Usually the blame can be deflected to the lower-right (or worse, a lower left) who reported them. The accuser is thus sternly warned not to harass the upper right; the accuser is also filed away as a future topic ban candidate.

I was tempted to graph the activities of admins on the GW articles, but I didn't think that would go over well. ATren (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris correct party approved graphing

Correct version of graph appearing now. Loyal Party members being proudly in far left. Provocateurs in lower right upper central quadrant. Lumpenproletariat not reading between the lines. Decadent bourgeois stooges in path of oncoming vehicles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a cross between the diagrams in my latest paper, and my breakfast :s Verbal chat 13:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A five-state two dimensional Ising model for social dynamics in a distributed online project, by Piet Mondrian, Phys. Rev. E (submitted). - 2/0 (cont.) 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Does that delineate the intricacies of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing? Stares at it, goes cross-eyed. ;-/ dave souza, talk 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Have I just been outed? Verbal chat 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What!?! Who leaked you the floorplan of our latest chip? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed close

I object to your proposed close. I need to reply on the sanctions page, but this is difficult to do in the current circumstances as the attempt to clarify the rules of teh game remains as muddy as before.

I would like a clear statement as to whether off-wiki statements re usable as evidence or not (or under what circumstances), and I would like any of the disucussion pertaining to statements that are deemed unrefable removed.

At the moment that talk page discussion has no clear result, it is just a discussion.

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Rules of the game. I will add something to the RE page on external links, but I think that for the time being this is going to need to be examined on a case-by-case basis with the understanding that only very rarely would off-site writings be cause for sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Connolley is often linking his blog as a way to insult people then it is justified in his case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Where do we stand on this. I object to your modified close, but (whilst not exactly enthralled) will live by your original (23:07, 25 January 2010). If that is OK with you, please close as such, and no-one needs to spend any more time or effort on this. If it isn't, then I'd like an opportunity to convince you otherwise, which will involve much tedious raking over of the evidence, which I'd rather not do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The modification of requested to required in the no-refactoring clause? I think that you have stepped over the line in some instances (diffs available upon request), as apparently does Lar. Most of the refactorings I recall offhand seeing from you have been productive, but sometimes a gentler touch is needed. You will still be free to call for a thread to be closed or request that another user rephrase their own comment. You are also free to appeal this sanction (I am assuming at this point that it will be placed), either immediately or after some weeks. In the latter case, having generally been engaged in productive discussion and showing examples where a clearly necessary refactoring was delayed overlong would probably help. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, over-the-line diffs would be useful, to see if we agree where the line is William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Still need those. Meantime, since Lar is insisting on "required", I object to he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, on the grounds that I haven't used that at anyone William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

88 hits, almost all from WMC, many recent. If I said "bullshit alarmist" 88 times, would I still be editing here? ATren (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Connolley, you had a section in your userspace devoted to calling certain famous scientists as "septics," which is also a massive BLP violation. Are you really so unaware of your own actions? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

88 hits, and not one of them a PA on anyone (and "many recent"? Including User talk:Silverback? Come on, do your work properly rather than scattershotting). This is as bad as failed google searches. Provide diffs of *actual* PA's William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It was never notable, but pushed in by the septics at the time. - "septics" referring to the editors who added the claim. This edit was last week. Couple with the recent "waste of time" and "fool" references, and we have a pattern, even during this probationary period. If we go back further, the pattern is shown to be long term.

And, BTW, the other dozens of "septic" references may not be direct attacks on editors, but they are soapboxing, and most likely BLP violations. If a noob showed up here calling climate scientists "alarmist morons" or something similarly derogatory, you would immediately revert as soapboxing, and they would be topic-banned if they did it more than a few times. You've used the "septic" smear dozens of times, over several years, at least one directed at editors, and you still defend it like there's nothing wrong. ATren (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your diff fails: there is no ref there to individual editors: indeed, you don't even know who I might be talking about. All the rest fail, for a similar reason. Go on: provide even one recent one referring to a psecific individual William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> Here you specifically categorize a number of people, by name, as "septics." Please explain how we are misunderstanding you - I can't wait. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• The whole mess around this one is the biggest concern - the multiple collapses seem to have been received as antagonism. Quite generally, I wish I had seen that section before it got too out of hand; TenOfAllTrades actually mentioned it here, but I got distracted by other matters and forgot. I think that the issue of whether or not collapsing was good for the community is outweighed in this instance by the struggle over it, which was bad for the community.

• That section was entirely pointless, as I think time has clearly shown. However, I'm prepared to leave stuff like that alone in future, if it makes you happy William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It would, thank you. Or, better yet, point it out and be the first on your block to up the level of discourse. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• On the one hand, yes, the two removals of Will looked a bit petty, especially at the RE page; arguably, this was the point. On another hand, Miss Manners would not approve of addressing someone by first name without a formal introduction and permission; personally, I wish that all sales clerks everywhere would learn this and stop bloody taking liberties with over-familiarity (plus they get my nickname wrong). I think part of the problem is that the address was replaced with [PA redacted], which covers everything from mildly insulting to immediately bannable. I think simply replacing it with a preferred mode of address and noting in the discussion that you had done so might have worked better.

• This was only done in cases where I had specifically asked the users in question not to do that. They were indeed doing it as a PA William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was intentionally rude, but I do not think that reacting as you did either helped highlight the issues with that thread (I, at least, treat them like AN3 reports and consider it negligent to fail to investigate the dispute(s) leading up to the request - muddying the behavioural waters does you no favors) or lessen the likelihood of recurrence. My biggest worry with this restriction is that some people may take the opportunity to taunt and poke and deliberately provoke you into violating it; I will have no part in rewarding that sort of behaviour, as it is a large part of what the probation was enacted to stop. You are not expected always to take the high road and "be the bigger man" or whatever (though, honestly, that would be nice), just to avoid adding to the problem when this sort of distraction crops up. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was intentionally rude - so can you point to the place where you've warned those editors not to repeat it? You've now banned me from removing what you yourself consider deliberate rudeness, so that would only be reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• [26] - good idea, poor execution; yes I saw the thread at MN's talk wherein both diminutives are explained - it was still poorly done.

• So you agree it should have gone - what would have been a better way of getting it out? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Replace it with the subject's actual name, request that the poster don't do that, and follow up with the counterexample using their own name at usertalk. If it becomes a pattern, file a report. Yes, diff-gathering for a report kinda sucks, but the status quo was a broken editing environment. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• [27] - this one is odd. On the one hand, simple formatting fixes are well within the TPG. On another, I think it might be better if you were to be extra especially careful with respect to editors with whom you are engaged in an active disagreement, as it is not unlikely that words and actions will be seen in the worst possible light, leading to escalation.

• You can't possibly complain about that diff (and I don't thinnk MN has, has he? I fixed his errors - as you say, this is well within guidelines) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though I think it is resolved now. This goes to being aware that your actions will be misinterpreted, willfully or innocently. Yes, I am aware that this is blaming you for the reactions of others, and that you noted the refactoring. I do not think that this is an enforceable diff, only that it would be nice to avoid such situations all together.

• [28] and [29] - yes, that thread was unlikely to lead to any actual edits to the article, but it was active basically on topic. It would have been better to propose that it be closed, either first or after the revert. Also, the first edit summary was not really the best; it pretty much invited a revert.

• The edit comment was deliberate: it invited anyone who disagreed with me to undo it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That is how it should be interpreted, yes; it could also be interpreted as provocative. Potential ambiguity is not your friend when trying to de-escalate a hotbed of dispute. The second close should have waited, either for someone else or for the discussion to die a natural death. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In summary, it is when the refactoring starts to be part of furthering or escalating a dispute (or can be misinterpreted that way - and people will tend to misinterpret things when engaged in a dispute) that I start to worry. I also proposed over at RE that archiving stale threads is uncontroversial, with a staleness threshold of two weeks - does that sound like a reasonable line for old discussions? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should use collapses more; the problem is space on the talk page, not when it gets archived. In fact it would be better to end up archiving sections that were collapsed, as a general principle William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, despite talking you're not listening, it would seem. Consider all my responses above to have been struck out William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your patient and considered, and hopefully continued, efforts in the AGW area. You are performing well above and beyond what could be expected from a volunteer editor, and have shown that faith in you is well placed. Well done, and keep it up! Verbal chat 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixup

I've fixed up your cot/cob: I think the small was getting in the way. When I looked, everything below was collapsed. Also, I moved the cob to include some comments that I *think* you wanted inside the collapse; apologies if I've erred in this (oops: I've now looked at the history: there has (and continues [30]) been some edit warring over the tag. OK, I'll not touch it again, up to you) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring again at monckton

You have done it again, fully protected Monkton, have you made a report to the probation board? Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrible protection. You waited until FormerIP had restored a truly terrible photograph, and THEN protected. I hardly think that's a coincidence. UnitAnode 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also, from what I can gather, the pro-AGW crowd is claiming they have "consensus" for inclusion of that terrible picture, based on a rough 8 to 6 count. For such an awful picture, on a BLP, that isn't close to "consensus." It's in there, simply because it makes him look truly strange, and you need to either undo your protection, or remove the picture yourself. UnitAnode 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Off2riorob - no. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@Unitanode - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Christopher+Monckton,+3rd+Viscount+Monckton+of+Brenchley and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - 2/0 (cont.) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

After watching just some of the comments going on about the climate articles in a couple of places I find it absolutely ridiculous all the way around. The behaviors are just not acceptable and the constant poking is just silly. You have to be exhausted already with all of it. May I suggest that maybe locking each and every article where the editors refuse to play nice? I mean, think about it, it give you and the administrators a break plus the other editors will have to find other places in the project to work, which would probably be a good thing. Two months of a lock down of the articles and the talk pages. After that time, see if everyone is ready to edit properly. I don't think it would hurt the project to shut down a half a dozen articles esp. since it would seem like nothing is getting done anyways. Thoughts? ;)--CrohnieGal^Talk 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0 is doing a good job (I know you're not disputing that, Crohnie). Other admins have fallen over when being nagged to do something, but at the moment 2/0's being asked not to do anything. So I suggest he continues doing what he's doing - not making rash calls, but responding after consideration in the best way he knows. He's not perfect, but he's the best we've got (that still sounds insulting - it isn't meant to be!) Verbal chat 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering this diff of your then I'll take your advocacy of 2/0 as proof that I'm right about his bias. Hell, I was "inspired" to do an RfA because of his actions and now he's closed my well-formulated section about Connolley in the probation - despite being asked twice by another admin to re-open it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I find harassment of anyone offensive, including the harassment of 2/0. I don't see how my actions prove anything about anyone else. Please remember, this isn't a battleground ... Verbal chat 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you flat out called for everyone who reported Connolley to be blocked despite the well-documented case of his various abuses and now you are saying 2/0 is handling the situation admirably. You also said those you wanted blocked wanted a "fringe view" in the articles and so a logical assumption is that your advocacy of 2/0 is because you think he is doing a good job suppressing this "fringe view." TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Help, help, I'm being suppressed! WMC has been putting a lot of thankless effort into maintaining due weight to majority scientific views on the topic, a concept many new editors find very hard to grasp. Incessant calls to highlight denialist views published in unreliable sources get pretty wearing, and 2/0 is showing good judgement. Admittedly in my opinion 2/0 may be getting a bit too much swayed by the numbers using civility claims to push minority viewpoints, but it's a difficult call and a willingness to be fair is clearly evident. Please assume good faith. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, this meme that WMC is "defending science" is demonstrably false by looking the actual edits. I guess that's a good thing to tell anyone who is uninvolved and uninformed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have serious reservations about Lar and LHvU being considered as neutral administrators regarding WMC, given WMC's bête noire status at a certain external forum in which they participate. But I suppose there's nothing that can be done about that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar and LHvU are no less neutral than 2/0 has been. ATren (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, I think by now 2/0 could probably need a break from all this bad faith dumped on him. Thegoodlocust, you are lucky to have an administrator like 2/0. Your rude behavior here and elsewhere probably wouldn't be tolerated by a lot of administrators. He is trying very hard to weight the issues and make fair decisions. What does he get for all of this? Nothing, you should be ashamed of yourself. Sorry, but I don't think any volunteer should be treated the way you are behaving. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think an admin should controversially close a complaint that highlights 10+ blatant BLP violations and refuse to correct that error when asked several times by other admins. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar has asked 2/0 to reopen the thread and he's hardly been given a chance to respond yet. At least wait for him to say "no" before voicing concerns with the imagined decision. I agree that the thread shouldn't have been closed, but it doesn't help to lose cool. Everything, will be alright everything, will be alright everything, will be alllriiiiiiiight as they say. :)--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, nobody is holding a gun to 2/0's head... ATren (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Crohnie :). Just for that, I will do my best to make sure that the 35 °F weather my computer says we have outside right now does not make it down your way.

That is certainly an interesting idea, and it would get around one of the problems with locking articles - too often, people just move smoothly to the next dispute on the list, leaving the issues unresolved. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't do 35 degrees, I wouldn't be able to move physically. :) You keep the cold up where you are, please. We are in the high 50's right now and though movement is difficult it actually feels good for a brief time. It's funny, hubby and I just heard the news right now about your 36 weather and laughed that I was commenting to you here about it. :) I figured from watching all of this without any care about any of it, that locking them all would give a needed rest. The pattern I am seeing is that when administrators see an article in a major dispute, the editors seem to take the issues to another article to dispute the same things. It's like a constant battle you all have going on. If the articles are locked down, I'd say a week or two to start, and the editors have to take discussions to the talk then maybe some resolutions can occur. If all of the articles are locked, there would be no other choice than finding a consensus. If a consensus is found about a dispute the editors can ask that the article be edited to add that part. The way it is now, the only thing happening is both sides are constantly making changes and nothing is sticking. Anyways, this is something that hasn't been tried that might be worth a go at to see if any progress can be made. If bad behavior continues at the talk page I would think the administrators watching could tend to them a lot easier. Anyways, just a thought. Don't get too cold! I don't know about you but I don't have clothes for these types of temps, at least not for any length of time. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

One week is fine

[31] but this should also include prematurely collapsing threads as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving is in this instance being used broadly to cover collapsing a thread, putting it in a discussion-box, and removing it as well as moving to the archive. Thank you for pointing this out, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-open second WMC thread?

Hello 2/0. Lar has asked a couple times [32][33] - but interspersed within other comments and so perhaps unnoticed - that the second WMC thread be reopened. It addressed other issues with WMC's editing that weren't covered in the current edition. I wanted to second that here. Would you mind opening it yourself? Otherwise I'd be happy to file another request myself. Maybe I can draft a clearer / more focused version anyway...

He's still making problem edits. These are all from today:

• WP:V and WP:Civil violation
• WP:Civil
• Unproductive jab ("utter rubbish").

Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. I nearly reopened it myself a short while ago. If it's not reopened and dealt with after awhile, I'll reopen it myself. WMC's behavior has been ignored and hand-slapped long enough. UnitAnode 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest in any reopening, it should be clear than an incremental effect in the result of both threads for WP:CIVIL behavior is desired. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

All of these are just vendetta-type stuff. There is no substance. In particular, no, Lar does not get away with calling for everyone to raise their game but somehow exempting himself (and I don't see any evidence that *he* did object) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I just added a diffs to my comment to this thread so you can find the two instances where Lar asked that the thread to be reopened. Sorry about that. I realize these requests get unwieldy and become difficult to follow closely. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything's a "vendetta" when people complain about you, it seems. If you continue apace, you're most likely going to find yourself topic-banned. The GW-related articles will not fall apart, even without their self-appointed panjandrum. UnitAnode 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Pointless", "Waste of time", "boring" and "dull" are the words I received in the past for anything related to correcting the editor who chooses to ignore warnings. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've also noticed the continuing (it seems even to be increasing?) pattern of problematic edits made by William. For example he responds to a notice that he should refrain from editing other people's comments (I thought that was a well established rule already?) and to refrain from deragotary terms by saying the reminder he was given is a "victory for the yahoo's (sic)". Are these continuing problems going to be addressed by you 2over0? Are editors posting notice of them to the appropriate noticeboard going to be threatened and attacked? I'm very uncomfortable with your involvement because you've been so aggressive in going after good faith editors trying to get these problems addressed and have left GoRight blocked all this time, but refuse to take any action when William's issues are pointed out again and again and again with diff after diff after diff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fairness can take some time; however, I agree GoRight and WMC seems to be a challenging comparison. AGF with GoRight, would be in order now. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

After a couple of months of steady harassment of WMC by a wide variety of IPs, sockpuppets, and named accounts, his behavior has started to deteriorate. There have been continual attempts to push a certain factually incorrect attack blog posting (and works derivative of that blog posting) into article after article. Claims of COI that have been repeatedly dismissed continue to be raised over and over again on page after page. In one of the coincidences that are so common on Wikipedia, there is considerable overlap between the accounts that have been harassing WMC and those that are complaining about him. Perhaps some people need to be told to back off. However, calling Global Warming skeptics "septics" was childish, and I support 2/0's action in telling WMC to stop. Cardamon (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I've attempted insertion of material from the New York Times, BBC and other major news outlets only to be told they weren't "right" (against WP:VERIFY. Also, Connolley has demonstrated a long-term pattern of BLP violations against skeptics and edits the articles of journalists and scientists that are critical of him. The only harassment is that people are finally getting fed up with the double-standard. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• WMC's behavior hasn't "deteriorated." It's just that now it's not being ignored. UnitAnode 22:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight is asking for a reply to his question

User_talk:GoRight is asking for a reply to his comment from 3 days ago. Off2riorob (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

nudge

[34] From goright :)mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident

WMC has removed [35] an entire section three times now with no consensus, i have asked him to stop on his talk page but i suspect he will ignore that. Would you please have a word as i do not really want to go back to enforcement. --mark nutley (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I thik it would be a good idea to look at that edit. Note, of course, that MN has conveniently forgotten the self-revert, so it is two times, not three. But the substance is: that section is (a) wrong, (b) has no RS, and (c) has no consensus for inclusion William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Section is not wrong just because you think it is. There is no consensus for it`s removal. It has a reliable source, newsnight. --mark nutley (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on, try a little bit of honesty: at least correct yourself over the removed-three-times William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Nigelj's compromise going to stop the edit warring, or does the article need to be locked while Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Code section plays out? The article has been quiet for almost three hours, but I am not sure if that is just because almost everyone has used their lone revert. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj's edit wasn't a compromise and broke WP:Consensus and WP:OR. You can follow the discussion here: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Proposed_removal. I am personally opposed to the locking of any article on Wikipedia as I don't think it ever improves the editing process, which is what is special/effective about Wikipedia. However I think policy is clearly being broken on these edits and if that's the route you choose to deal with it, OK. Blocks seem to be a better option though.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Or two reverts...depending on who you are... Arkon (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Was that snide remark aimed at anyone? I'm not aware of anyone with 2R there - but if you are, I urge you to draw it to 2/0's attention for a block. Hopefully you weren't relying on MN to be accurate William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was relying on your own words in this very section. Specifically:

Note, of course, that MN has conveniently forgotten the self-revert, so it is two times, not three.

The reliability of this statement I will leave to your judgment. Arkon (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You fail the context test. "Lone revert" refers to per day. No-one has 2 per day William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess that would be a no - despite being opposed on all sides, apparently that was not an acceptable compromise. The article is now on the pre edit war version (including the source that is either good for nothing except perhaps their own opinion on politics or solid gold). I am trying a soft-lock on that section - any further edits to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Code and documentation without consensus at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident will be considered edit warring. Please do not play at silly buggers with the definition of consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

you may be sure that given that ruling, MN and HiP will simply continue to insist that Newsnight is a RS for matters of climatology and computing science. Effectively, you have ruled for that nonsense to remain in indefinitely William M. Connolley (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, If newsnight get an expert in to look at code and then make a professional statement on that code then it is reliable. mark nutley (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not his code, he never worked for the group in question, your question is totally out of line, and your insertion of your question after I tried to help you save face by removing it is in poor form. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

@WMC - that would be one way of playing silly buggers with the definition of consensus, yes. Think of it like protecting the Wrong Version, but leaving the rest of the article open for now. I certainly have some awfully trashy code on my computer that I would be mortified to see exposed on the internet (not to mention a few Mardis Gras pictures), so I can sympathize with that position. There may be enough disagreement as to whether they are reliable for these statements that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, are you calling me a nonce? leaving the rest of the article open for the nonce I dunno were in the world you are but over here that is a child molester. I`m assuming it`s a typo but can`t for the life of me figure what you might have meant. mark nutley (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of linguistic trivia I wasn't familiar with. For the nonce is an expression meaning for now or for the time being, or even for the present (temporary) purpose. See also wiktionary:nonce, nonce word. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! I learned something new today - I meant it in the sense of wikt:for the nonce, meaning for now (as I have edited the above for clarity), not in any of the senses but the first one at wikt:nonce. I was completely unaware of the alternate definitions, and I apologize for what must have seemed an egregious and totally uncalled for personal attack. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok that`s cool, i learnt something new today as well :) I figured is was not a personal attack lol, but for the life of me could not figure what you meant :) Thanks. mark nutley (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Phil Collins, that's Nonce Sense (cf.Brass Eye). In the UK at least nonce is also a light hearted way of saying idiot, as well as having the meaning 2/0 intended. Verbal chat 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Response

What happened? Well, I may as well give you a short play-by-play, as it's probably worth pointing out how this has looked to me:

A thread dealing with WMC's WP:Civil and WP:NPA violations was closed as no action without the violations being addressed. Requests for its being reopened were made by myself and Lar (along with this strange constituency that has congregated around those viewed as fighting the good fight against "overly dogmatic scienctists." The whole thing feels very surreal to me, like being a character in a Feyerabend novel). These requests weren't acknowledged and the thread wasn't reopened. WMC was then given sanctions for other reasons, whereupon he continued to break WP:Civil, WP:NPA, and topped it off with WP:V/WP:Disrupt (deleting a section twice without consensus). At this point it seemed appropriate, advised even, to request enforcement.

I'm sorry if the request came across wrong, but I don't think it was wrong-headed... It'd be great to get a response from you on this.--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for explaining your perspective on the matter. If you would like me to strike, remove, or alter my comment there, you have only to ask.

I really wish I had done a better job explaining what I meant by no action / merge with previous. Some diffs and discussion from that section were considered, at least by me, in the unified result; some diffs and discussion from that section were discarded. I think if a similar situation arises in future I will attempt a full merge of the discussions as at least engendering different confusion. Also, I read Lar's statements as down there might have been better than up here, but I guess that would be another reason to deal with the hassle of moving comments around.

That section removal touched off some edit warring (blocks forthcoming if it continues), but there is enough talkpage discussion that I would not move it up to WP:DE territory. As for the rest, well, I am still at the wait and see stage. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for explaining yours. Wikipedia is a very different culture and it's not self-evident to me how actions and reactions will be viewed, so this helps.

Apparently WMC has made very important contributions to Wikipedia in the past, and it seems like this has tinted the lenses somewhat, for better or worse. As people have pointed out, others have been blocked for much less. I just know that since I came across him the very few constructive edits I've seen him make have been of the rv vandalism/copy-edit variety, and the rest inflammatory rants and jabs that have done a lot to create and sustain the polarization you see now.

I don't really care about striking the comment, I suppose, though I haven't looked at the thread since. It's up to you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I really would like an explanation for how WMC gets away with calling people derogatory names after your drafted motion "requiring" him to stop doing so? As someone who briefly "tangled" with WMC at Garth Paltridge, I'm sure I'll be accused by him of having a "vendetta", but I would like you to explain how the "required" language doesn't lead now to a stricter sanction based on his very recent behavior, even -- brazenly enough -- at this very talkpage. Regards, UnitAnode 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is no need for me to accuse you of having a vendetta. Your comments make tht blatantly obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What disturbs me is that we were working constructively towards consensus on the lead, making good progress on a very contentious topic when WMC swoops in to stir the pot with his removal (twice no less) of an entire long-standing section without so much as a fare-thee-well. Looking over the diffs provided on the latest sanction request, I can't help thinking what the result would have been if my name were attached to those posts. Since no diffs were deemed required to pass judgment in my RfS it is difficult to make comparisons but I can guarantee you there were no posts of mine that were close to being that disruptive, and certainly I have never stooped to the egregious name calling and condescension that seems to be his SOP. And all this in an article where legitimate COI concerns have been raised and deemed moot because he "voluntarily" agreed to withdraw from that article and hadn't been disruptive "recently". I really am having trouble understanding what the rules are around here. JPatterson (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Demeaning names

I would have thought that considering the only very recent additional civility conditions applied to WMC in reference to demeaning other editors that this edit on his talkpage from yesterday is a violation of those conditions, he clearly refers to editors as the idiots. Could you let me know your opinion as regards this edit, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Especially in regard to these two parts of the recent closing report from yourself ... he (WMC)is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms and Please be careful when throwing around terms that might be interpreted to refer to your fellow volunteers - even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages.... I would have thought that whilst in discussion with SBH about the Skeptic editors on his talkpage that WMC referring to them as the idiots is a clear violation of the sections of the report that I have posted here. Off2riorob (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like a case of "if the hat fits, wear it". @2/0: Yes, please do let me know your opinion. You've thrown the trolls meat and they want more. I've been told before "if you don't like the comments on a user talk page, then don't watch it". Perhaps you'd care to offer this advice to O2RR? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to quit calling people derogatory names immediately after a request for enforcement found you were "required" to stop doing so? UnitAnode 15:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering as I saw you editing, if you could please answer my question, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding that I have a limited amount of time to devote to this website; coverage of matters about which I care more is slipping in some areas, but I would like to think that climate change can be a calmer editing environment than, say Israel/Palestine. As of lunchtime today, I had read every contribution from WMC for the past two weeks; this is basic due diligence in complex cases. The game here is to build the best free encyclopedia we can, and scoring points off each other at the RE board and elsewhere is immaterial to that goal. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have not even answered my simple request for a comment as regards my simple question. I have spent time and presented my simple question as regards an issue you are appertaining to be the administrator taking actions and reports, I find your failure to answer my simple straightforward well presented question very disappointing. I would like to suggest to you that if this is your position that you stand down from assumed authourity in this issue ans allow another administrator to take charge of a situation that you are failing to action correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• You've not approached an answer to the question as to your disparity in enforcement between Collins and Connolley. Please take the time to answer the question that has been raised at the enforcement page with regards to that issue. UnitAnode 00:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC Diffs since your ruling

These are all diffs since you closed the WMC case.

• In response to your notification on his talk: calls those who reported him "yahoos".
• Later, calls them idiots
• "If the hat fits, wear it" re-affirming the idiots and yahoos charge, and throwing in a "trolls" for good measure.

2/0, does this look like an attempt at compliance, or does it look like blatant defiance? When are you going to act on these? ATren (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that diffs to edits on 2/0's talk page are rather redundant. My assertion that you have a vendetta in this looks ever more correct William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice you're not denying that you've called other editors "yahoos", "idiots", and "trolls." UnitAnode 15:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley

You may remember my old probation request regarding MN. (Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive1#Marknutley). You may wish to review the comment by JzG - "I think at this point the outcome is, de facto, that marknutley is on notice to give more thought to is contributions and to be mindful of the potential to cause drama through ill-judged comments. I think we can probably leave it at that for now, if he does not heed this warning then it is likely we will find consensus for a topic ban of some duration." I suggest that this on your talk page is a direct violation of what MN was directly warned about. MN's "hunch" was pure speculation, backed by nothing more than his obvious dislike for WMC. Is there any reason whatsoever for MN to ever comment on WMC in the future? If you would prefer, I can file a fulsome probation request regarding MN - as you are almost certainly aware, I've been archiving his problmatic conduct for the better part of this month, or you can handle this as you would like. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC has been baiting MN for weeks. MN shouldn't take the bait, but this is just another example of WMC's disruption. Examples: calling him dishonest, veiled insult, incivility, "gratuitously refactor MN's errors" condescending response "This is really not that hard if you pay close attention", personal attack, implying he's a fool, incivility - "you just make yourself look ridiculous" ATren (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So file a report. I'm unhappy with WMC's incivility, but I'm more unhappy that MN is trying to create or propigate a false statement about WMC working for the CRU on wikipedia, you know, because one has real life consequences and the other doesn't, and all. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So you think asking a question is in fact an ill judged comment? File your probation request. and please provide me a link to your attack page :) --mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

MN, strike the question about his coding. Let them resort to petty ulterior motive accusations, you're above that crap. ATren (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Struck out as requested, which i would also have done had i been politely asked and not had my post edited. mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Marknutley;

Because your comment remains legible, striking does not fully sove the problem. We do not strike violations of WP:BLP, we remove them. Please remove the struck portion of your comment. Thank you ever so kindly.

Yours in abject politness

Hipocrite. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked for politeness, and got it by the truckload :) I deleted the offending question :)

Dear Marknutley;

Thank you ever so much for your prompt attention. Your willingness to be reasonable when approached with politness is a disturbing reminder of how long it's been since I last wrote a formal letter.

Yours in victorian formality

Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See, was that so difficult? :-) ATren (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) ATren, I believe you've been one of the editors unhappy about "septic", even when used undirected. Are you happy to be describing H's comments as "crap" - does this fit with the standards of civility that you appears to expect from others? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you truly unable to see the difference between describing someone's comment as "crap" and describing a person (or groups of people) as "septic"? UnitAnode 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. But since you have raised it as a concern, I'll gladly strike it. ATren (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See, was that so difficult? :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you've completely ignored the fact that ATren was not calling a person or group of people "crap", as you were with "septic." UnitAnode 18:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is WMC continually given a free pass for his conduct? If anyone else called their fellow editors "idiots", "yahoos" and "septics", action would be taken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not just editors, but he has used them in an obviously BLP-violating manner (categorizing, by name a good sized number of scientists as "septics"). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

Hi 2/0, I'd like to ask that you reconsider your proposal/ruling for Gavin.collins. In my view it's quite clear his comment is no different from the kind of bluster we've just seen from WMC in response to his sanction. Whatever reasons there may be for treating editors differently, which we may or may not agree on, I do not see how the response to a sanction is something that should be treated under different standards. Similarly it seems to me the proposal that he leave behind the merge proposals is at least quite adequate, and that anything else would be somewhat punative and arbitrary, if it is just based on the idea that he can be somewhat difficult to deal with in a general sense. If not then I think a stronger response to WMC is called for, although as I said that is not something I would like to see either. I know you are trying to evaluate these cases neutrally, as I am, and I think you're doing much well. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than the fact that many people seem to find them difficult to collaborate with, I really do not see a lot of parallelism between those reports. Gavin.collins is well aware by now that his talkpage conduct has reached the level of disruption, was offered a when it is not working, try something else, eh? solution, but declined. Seeking outside input as outlined in WP:Dispute resolution, which was the obvious alternative to continuing to push a proposal that had been evaluated and rejected, remains an option. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0, are you saying that WMC's actions have not been disruptive? You've warned him, and he ignored your warning (in fact, spitefully rejected it with a new attack) yet you still refuse action there. How much more evidence do you need?

I repeat my earlier call that you withdraw from this probation, as I don't believe you have demonstrated that you can enforce the same standard for editors on both sides of the debate. You ignored that earlier request, and therefore I am repeating it. ATren (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The one-sided nature of these enforcements is becoming quite absurd. This is all most likely going to end only if the arbcom steps in and does what the current crop of enforcement admins seem unwilling to do: offer a broad topic ban (or at least a NPA/Civility restriction with some teeth) of WMC until that point in which he demonstrates a modicum of ability to keep from insulting those with whom he disagrees. UnitAnode 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me there must be a limit on the extent someone's statement of their opinion can be seen as disrupting Wikipedia, when the opinion is relevant to the article, and the statement does not attack other editors or violate policies. One can say, Gavin, if you want to accomplish something here then you might want to try something else, and even, Gavin, please see that consensus on this point has been established so please do not expect further silence to indicate consent. I would not expect that to be the very moment when we say, Gavin, if you express that opinion one more time you will be banned from editing or commenting on this article. You know? Disruption should mean things like starting another RFC after one has just ended, or insisting on making the edit even after it has been rejected, not just stating that you maintain a particular opinion. Indeed, there must be a line between the permissible statement of one's opinion, at any point, and disruptive pursuit of a rejected argument. It is not clear to me where that line was crossed here.

That's a bit of a tangent. The problem is we had a perfectly reasonable proposal to say that the editor shouldn't pursue this issue any longer. Then, because he complains (and in fact it seems you saw some legitimacy to the complaint) BozMo and you decide to raise it to an article ban. This was mostly, but not entirely, BozMo's doing. I am sure you see the need to be perceived as neutral in this venue, and hence to operate by clear standards, and in that light I'm asking you to consider whether this is consistent with the treatment of WMC in the last couple of days. I think it's clearly not, and I don't see any reason in this situation why it shouldn't be. Mackan79 (talk)

The GC thing needs a resolution, or clarification as to whether it is resolved. Is your last post there final? What are we waiting for? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You've been asked a question at the enforcement page

I know you're active now, since you imposed your draconian 3-month article ban on Gavin Collins. There have been questions raised about your proposal of no action against WMC for far worse conduct. Please answer them straightaway. UnitAnode 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fairly rude and peremptory way to phrase your demand. I'm curious whether you expect your complaints about incivility to be taken seriously when you seem to be unable to be civil yourself. When you believe yourself to be right about something, you seem to feel little need to be polite to people who disagree with you. No doubt WMC also believes himself to be right. Why do you expect him - or anyone - to adhere to a standard that you don't seem willing to live up to yourself? MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't compare my very straightforward (and, admittedly, quite frustrated) request here to what WMC has been perpetuating on his perceived ideological foes for a long time. I'm not the only one who is concerned about the heavy-handedness toward one side, and the kid gloves toward the other. My point was (and remains) that 2/0 has been actively editing, while almost completely ignoring these questions, and letting stand his practically nonsensical "move to close with no action" at the requests page. How is anything I typed above uncivil in any meaningful way? No name-calling, but simply a frustrated request for a response. UnitAnode 21:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your comment shows why it is a terrible idea to allow these breaches of probation to continue without addressing them. By not acting, the actions that were reported become the acceptable level of discourse. So now we get lots of people doing what was previously ignored, and boom, arbcom here we come. Now, in response to your comment, I think you have a chicken-egg problem on your hand. Arkon (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael H 34

Hi,

A RFC/U has been created regarding the conduct of an editor you have had contact with, User:Michael H 34. It can be found here. Please comment if you feel it appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC incivility thread on WP:GS/CC/RE

Hey there. I was reading the request for enforcement on Climate Change articles page yesterday, and I remembered again why I try to stay out of those subject areas. What a battleground they are. I'm in half a mind to ban a dozen editors from the entire area; perhaps that would calm things down. But that's for another day. As an uninvolved administrator, I did not really agree with your conclusion here, and added my name to a list of people requesting further analysis. Do you think you could take a look at that soon? Thanks, NW (Talk) 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I did see that, and I shall post it soon. The request for analysis is perfectly reasonable, though it does take time. Thank you for taking an interest in that board, as it is getting out of hand. Liberal bans and page protections sound like a good idea, though I do worry about damage to the continuing improvement of the articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha I've actually seriously considered requesting an "all-climatechangeeditor-topic-ban" but it sounded so doomsday to me. I do worry that the same kinds of editors would come back, but I'm not sure.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

nudge :)

[36] Guess who it`s from and win a cigar :) --mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Third request

2/0, this is my third request; my first two went unanswered.

I am requesting that you remove yourself from enforcement on the global warming probation, and I am further asking that you undo decisions that you've made on that page. I also think you should unblock GoRight, who has for some time been requesting your input for unblock conditions. While I believe GoRight has some issues to resolve, your indef block and lack of action thereafter is unacceptable given your lack of similar action against WMC, who has behaved worse than GoRight and yet he remains without sanction. Best to leave GoRight's status in the hands of other admins who are not as involved as you are.

I believe your enforcement has been biased towards one side of the debate, and while we all appreciate your efforts at remaining neutral, I now feel that there is enough evidence to demonstrate that bias unequivocally. This is in no way an accusation of bad faith; it is a friendly request to withdraw and thereby save the hassle of formal dispute resolution. ATren (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ATren, your obvious biases in this are obvious. You cannot possibly even begin to believe yourself a neutral editor calling for neutrality. A comparison of my and GR's edits will make it very clear why we have been treated differently. You have thoroughly aligned yourself with the skeptic "side", which is GR's side, which is why you are defending him William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps he believes in equal treatment for all? --mark nutley (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not defending GR, nor will you see any diffs of me defending him since his indef block. I personally believe he crossed the same line you've been crossing. My problem is the unequal treatment of offenses by editors on opposite sides of the debate: GoRight crossed a line and he was indef blocked; you crossed a line and 2/0 defends you. That's a problem, and it needs to be rectified. It also extends to 2/0's other recent actions, such as his knee-jerk reactions to JPat and Gavin Collins, both of which are suspect given his lack of action against you.

Taken on their own, 2/0's actions against JPat, GC, and GoRight might be considered acceptable, but in light of his lack of action against your clear transgressions, they are clearly biased. I am asking him therefore to cease involvement based on that, and I believe the evidence is strong enough to seek formal action should he refuse. This is a polite request on my part to avoid that. ATren (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ATren, my interpretation of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoRight&action=history differs substantially from yours. I proposed on the 24th a framework for working towards a conditional unblock. Including that one and the initial detailed blocking statement, I have made nine substantial posts related to this block, or about 20 kB of plaintext. I also submit to you that the three actions (or two actions and one that is currently at the proposed-but-likely-to-be-enacted stage) you list above were taken only after careful review of the relevant diffs in full context, as befits any such sanction of a fellow volunteer.

I respect that we humans are ill-equipped to evaluate our own biases. I hope you can accept that I strive for neutrality in my actions under the probation, without reference to a false sense of balance amongst the several "sides". I am very wary of any request for action against another user originated by anyone active in the probation topic area, as there is substantial potential to bias my information streams and thus my actions. With that in mind, if you would like to share your thoughts, rationations, and collated diffs by email or with a link to your userspace, I would like to consider them. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 11:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been striving for neutrality, no doubt, but the evidence indicate you have not achieved neutrality. I am still waiting for a detailed justification of JPat's article ban, which you later retracted but only after much discussion and apologies by JPat. In the case of JPat, you jumped right to strict enforcement with nary a warning, and based on only two article reverts. That is as heavy-handed as these things get, and afterward you were very reluctant to overturn it -- yet here you are presented with dozens of abusive diffs and you are defending the editor.

Now it seems the same is being played out at Gavin Collins -- indeed, he may deserve a sanction, but surely his behavior has not been as persistently bad as WMC's has been (look at all the diffs), and yet once again you are more than willing to jump right into a 3-6 month sanction with little hesitation, even as you defend WMC's brazen "idiots and yahoos" smears. As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is all right there on the enforcement page, I don't need to collect another diff, and at least 5 others seems to agree, and a few of them are completely uninvolved.

If this what you call even-handed enforcement, then you should be prepared to defend it formally because that's where it's going. ATren (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have to agree. You were asked to explain why WMC was being allowed to call other editors "yahoos" and "idiots", immediately following your "requirement" that he not do so. You still haven't done so. UnitAnode 14:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're a broken record. Find something of value to say, or better still something of value to contribute to the actual encyclopaedia William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Come now WMC, that is hardly WP:CIVIL is it, my old mum used to say to me, if you don`t have anything good to then say noting, good advice i have always felt :) mark nutley (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take you own advice William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you all end this conversation now? Thank you. NW (Talk) 20:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How

...do you keep your sanity? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself, I feel for the guy, he is really on a lose lose situation here :( --mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thirded. I officially hate climate change articles.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In an otherwise empty mayonnaise jar, hermetically sealed so that neither vapor nor spirit may escape. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

About the request for diffs

Hey 2/0. I think you may have misread the request. It was:

"Can I ask you to go through the diffs provided, and explain how each is not actionable, or not a violation of the probation?"

whereas what you have done is post a list of 67 diffs since the 28th of January with ~6 word descriptions tacked onto each. This wasn't what was asked for and it has issues of its own. Most editors aren't going to sift through that and I don't think the summaries you gave are descriptive enough to rely on if they don't. Could you please create another list to fulfill the request? or refactor the current one? In any case, I reponded at that section: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Request_for_analysis. Sorry. Also, everyone wants to know how you keep your sanity (see above).--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be absolutely unconscionably inappropriate to argue for or against a topic ban or similar sanction of a fellow volunteer but fail to review their recent contributions. The sum of all diffs is the public face of any Wikipedian, and it is not given to us to stand in judgment over only their grossest features. In presenting a case in favor of a topic ban, it is perfectly appropriate to put forth only those diffs that highlight the behaviour perceived as problematic, in the understanding that the remaining facets of the editor in question have been examined with an eye to finding a minimally disruptive solution (e.g. my offer to Gavin.collins that he move on to a different issue or a different venue, and the fact that if the proposed sanction is enacted he explicitly remains free to pursue other steps in dispute resolution). In arguing against the application of a sanction, it is necessary to present a user as a productive member of the community. This is a much subtler proposition, and cannot be demonstrated simply by arguing that this diff or that diff is a quality contribution. As there was some question as to whether my original statement of analysis had adequately examined the evidence base, I was quite appropriately and politely requested to provide a more transparent accounting for my reasoning. The diffs prior to the recent sanction were included in that decision, so for these purposes I considered only the edits since it was enacted. As this included only a relatively small number of edits, I decided that the best way to demonstrate due diligence and make sure that everyone was on the same page in examining the body of evidence would be to present that body in tutum with a brief summary of each edit.

Only Beer And Fine Grass Keep My Rattled Nerves Sane (link is safe for work, the phrase is a mnemonic for stellar classification). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read this in an "Oh man I love you bro but seriously!?" voice(prefaces are always written after the prefaced): God, the diffs neglected by your 67-diff list were not covered by the previous request. WMC was sanctioned for using the word septic and for refactoring comments, based off of a discussion that only included any of those diffs because I added them a very short while before the "ruling." In my request I was very careful only to include instances that demonstrated behavior not discussed in that ruling and not enforced by that ruling [the French have a word I always want to use in these kinds of instances in place of "discussed" and the like: abordé. It's a wonderful word.]. After all, what else would warrant a different/new enforcement?

I do understand that you need to go through all the diffs, but an unasked-for pasting of 67 on a talkpage along with rosy descriptions doesn't help things. Time constraints dictate that only a certain percentage of the people will look through any percentage of those, and those that don't will be mislead (a case of "providing the well with an antidote"). It was astonishing to compare your descriptions of Goright's preblock diffs and their corresponding content - with your description of WMC's preblock diffs and their corresponding content. It might be worth looking through the two sets yourself. Can you see how that comes across?

I am the first to admit that preconceptions color my interpretation of any given material. I have to read comments from editors I have a particular opinion about twice. The first run through is almost invariably wrong, the second I start to realize what they meant. This happens, and it's okay. But man, it is definitely happening here.

Sorry to take up so much space.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you need a break I'll watch over the implementation of the climate change probation

I might need you to RfA for me though. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

FWA Footballer of the Year

You might recall a discussion about 1RR at FWA Footballer of the Year last month. Take a look at the current edit history of that article. --HighKing (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

nudge time

[37] Try and put some time aside to get this sorted out :)

I notice that WMC often removes others' comments from his talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That is about enough of that, if you please. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

---

so he can get the last word in discussions. I don't suppose that violates his incivility probation? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh nm, you already said that it applies to usertalk. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that 2over0's statement doesn't prohibit WMC from removing comments from his own talk page. Such a prohibition would be without precedent, and would to boot be far too readily gameable should editors wish to harrass him. We let blocked vandals remove content from their talk pages; the purpose of a user talk page is to facilitate communication with that user, not to act as a repository of disputes, scarlet letters, or bickering. Editors who find that their comments on WMC's talk are uwelcome should bring any significant concerns to an appropriate forum — but 'WMC doesn't want to talk to me' isn't an actionable problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I quote, "[User:William M. Connolley]] is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done." Connolley has a long habit of deleting other people's comments on his talk page, people who are trying to engage him civily, and he appears to be doing this either to get in the last word or provoke them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile taking this to WP:AN for outside opinions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No need for that yet; his warning was given and the language was clear. The only question is whether or not the rules apply to WMC or if the requirements will be changed so they retroactively don't apply to his behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust, please assume good faith. Yes, the lack of action regarding WMC's misconduct is unfortunate, but continually harping about it is only going to alienate your fellow editors. I suggest that someone who is familiar/comfortable with filing such a request simply do so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors can remove what they want from their talk pages. I don't think his restriction changes that. ATren (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking at first but then I looked at talk page guidelines and it specifically mentions user talk pages and the wording in the probation does not specifically state article talk pages. It appears that WMC has violated the letter of his probation. The problem that I am finding is whether this violates the spirit of the probation. Did the terms of his probation mean to include all talk pages or just article talk pages? I don't know. That's why someone should bring this up to the admins and find out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the warning specifically mentions that it applies to user talk pages. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But even blocked users are given editorial control of their own talk. I don't think it's a violation, and even if it were, I don't think it's worth pursuing, . ATren (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Even blocked users can have their talk pages protected from editting. I guess we'll see if WMC's warning will be applied or rewritten/reinterpreted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Both you and AQFN seem to think that clarification from the admin community is needed. Instead of continuing to use 2/0's talk page as a forum it would be better for you to pose it at the appropriate venue (probably WP:AN). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think "clarification" is needed - I think action is needed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this is NOT a personal vendetta against a fellow editor. If WMC didn't honestly realize he was violating the terms of his probation, I have an ethical problem with any action being taken against him. We're supposed to assume good faith here. However, I don't see anything wrong with asking for clarification so we know going forward whether this is allowed or not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly seems that way (while we are on the subject of deleting comments). I restored the comment because no individual was named, and thus no violation took place. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> I personally think it is clear that he has already violated the terms of his probation due to his other actions and clearly uncivil statements, but unfortunately there is a "subjective" factor to those comments, which apparently translates into inaction. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of User talk:William M. Connolley is to communicate with that user and that any removed posts remain in the archive, I do not think that such removals violate the intention of the prohibition. I have asked the other two administrators who commented there if they disagree with this view or would object to an amendment to the formal wording indicating such. Thank you for bringing this up, as the matter should have been considered before the close was implemented. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It does say "editing others' talkpage.." which seems to preclude any restriction on editing his own tp, no? JPatterson (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't say "others" talkpages - you appear to be misreading it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically (part of it) says, "The area of probation is to be interpreted to include anywhere that a topic related to or a dispute stemming from climate change is being discussed, including but not limited to articletalk, usertalk, and WP and WT namespaces." You appear to have been confused by the section that says, "User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done; he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos." TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In short, you left out the word "posts" when quoting the restriction - which gives it an entirely different meaning. Please be more careful in the future. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I think at the very least this should be clarified to prevent him from summarily deleting other people's comments. Editors are still trying to communicate with him about his behavior and he is refusing all attempts at communication. Obviously harassment shouldn't be allowed, but if someone refuses to recognize behavioral problems then they will never try to fix them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread is an excellent example of why users are allowed to remove posts from their talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am missing something surely? WMC's own talk page is not subject to probation because it is not the talk page of a climate change article. His specific bit says "WMC is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation". which does not apply to his talk page because it is not a page subject to this probation. Is there any good faith argument for saying his own talk page is part of the climate change probation (even interpreted widely)? If not we are wasting time here... --BozMo talk 21:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you missed this, I'll post it again, his probation says, ""The area of probation is to be interpreted to include anywhere that a topic related to or a dispute stemming from climate change is being discussed, including but not limited to articletalk, usertalk, and WP and WT namespaces." The probation also specifically says that guidelines which would normally allow him to redact/delete/archive posts do not apply to him - and those rules cover the latitude normally given to one's own talkspace. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is silly, and reflects badly on those making the complaint. Verbal chat 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shhh! Don't tell them William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it reflects badly when people constantly delete part of a conversation in order to make it look like they got the last word due to their oh-so-amazing arguments. I have no problem with you deleting/archiving entire conversations - that would be the mature thing to do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This kind of stuff? [38] - you're right, it is terribly immature William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> I was thinking more along the lines of this thisthisand this (all over the last day). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I should note, the diff WMC posted was of my removal of his trolling at my talkpage. He was clearly scrummming for a fight, so I removed it as the trolling it was. UnitAnode 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Which confirms the very sensible right of each editor to remove any comments from their own talk page, no matter how it looks to outsiders, and also displays remarkable bad faith. Accusations of trolling do rather tend to resemble "scrummming for a fight", a more polite edit summary would have made removal of the post unremarkable. Not always attainable, but politeness pays. . . dave souza, talk 09:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Um, things went off into the weeds on my talk too, a bit anyway. I just popped by here to say I think you should go ahead and make the clarification you were suggesting, if you hadn't already, to make it clear that this didn't apply to WMC's own talk page. ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

[39] @ global warming controversy, please take a look, you have guys removing an entire section on the basis they do not like one of the refs, why they are unable to remove a ref and feel the need to remove an antire section of good faith contributions is beyond me. --mark nutley (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected for two days by NuclearWarfare, now. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there 2over0, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:2over0. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk Global Warming

Would you please ask WMC to change his post here [40] I did ask him but all he did was fix a typo :( There is no need for the sarcastic digs at wattsupwiththat or Joe d'Aleo. Thanks --mark nutley (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Filter

Hi!

Could you take a look at the content of the dispute at Great Filter? Robin Hanson, the prof who developed this hypothesis, has written quite a few articles about the future of technology and humanity, is a member of the Future of Humanity Institute, and so on. This makes him a futurist, by definition, and is very well supported by a large number and variety of reliable sources. So we should call him a futurist, in the view of 2 of the 3 editors working on this article. The remaining editor does not like this at all, and insists it is OR, or interpretation, etc. This seems very odd to me, since WP:OR explicitly states

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly."

To the two of us, this seems exactly what we are doing, and your opinion on this issue would be most helpful.

Also, you locked the article in the anti-concensus state, in so far as 2 vs 1 can be described as concensus. This induces a practical problem, as the remaining editor is now perfectly happy with the locked state, has no reason to try to resolve this issue, and has indeed stopped discussing. Two things might help here - perhaps after half a week or so, swap it to the concensus state, or better yet, look at the arguments in addition to the reverts - perhaps you could add your voice on the side of reason, as you see it.

Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some status...

Re: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC I think that one's baked. All the involved admins seem to have come to rest, and it's closable with the sanction wording you drafted. Do you want to do the honors?

Re: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#142.68.95.166.2C_142.68.92.131 I have your CU results for you, what to do next? I dunno. Try the rangeblock, maybe, but write a really good log entry so that any anons know what to do... as per usual. Up to you. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya apparently our mails crossed on that first one. :) Advise if you need more CU work on the latter. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great mimes and all that. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your debt

DuKu (talk · contribs) seems to have taken your restriction on me as license to break 3RR on ExxonMobil. Perhaps you might care to remind him, forcefully, of the rules, and spare me the trouble of putting in a 3RR report (it would be too much to expect Lar to bother, I realise) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)