Please undo your disruptive move [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGeneral_sanctions%2FClimate_change_probation%2FRequests_for_enforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=376920524&oldid=376919827 here]. I'm not involved in the tagging/untagging game, and I'm no more involved in the general CC area than you are. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Please undo your disruptive move [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGeneral_sanctions%2FClimate_change_probation%2FRequests_for_enforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=376920524&oldid=376919827 here]. I'm not involved in the tagging/untagging game, and I'm no more involved in the general CC area than you are. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
:Stephan Schulz: You're obviously very much involved the CC topic space. Did you purposely post in the uninvolved admin section? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 11:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
:Stephan Schulz: You're obviously very much involved the CC topic space. Did you purposely post in the uninvolved admin section? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 11:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns if you don't want to post.
Here about a BLP that's persistently getting vandalized and you want me to semi protect it? Leave a note below, (User:Lar/Liberal Semi is no longer in use) and I or one of my TPWs will get it.
Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active... Ping me if it's truly urgent, or find another admin.
Here about accountability? see my accountability page. Note: The apparent listification of the category (it's back but may go away again) does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way
Please read the two blue boxes :).
A Note on how things are done here:
Being a "grumpy old curmudgeon", I have certain principles governing this talk page which I expect you to adhere to if you post here. (This talk page is my "territory", (although I acknowledge it's not really mine, it's the community's) and I assume janitorial responsibility for it.)
I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. If I inadvertently change the meaning of anything, please let me know so I can fix it!
While I reserve the right to delete comments I find egregiously poor form, I am normally opposed to doing so and use monthly random archives instead. If you post here, your words will remain here and eventually in the archives, so please do not delete them, use strikeouts. In other words, think carefully about what you say rather than posting hastily or heatedly.
Edit warring here is particularly bad form. One of my WP:TPW's may well issue a short block, so don't do it.
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.
please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy
I'm sorry, I haven't had time to think about this and probably will not so I will need to defer to others and abide by whatever consensus emerges. ++Lar: t/c17:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unified Login
Hi Lar. Does your stewards flag and other medals have anything to do with unified login? I set it up a few years ago in the name of my then main account user:mcginnly, but have since been pretty exclusively using user:joopercoopers here. Is there any way of converting my unified login from mcginnly to joopercoopers to prevent this kind of booboo - usurpation or some such? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After my last confirmation (marked by much character assassination by the many grudgeholders I've accumulated over the years, and some valid feedback that was concerning, but which was nevertheless successful by the definitions in use), my steward flag was taken away from me by a secret committee advised by some folk, who to this day choose to remain anonymous and who decline to make the proceedings public, so I'm afraid I cannot personally help you since I don't have the required bit any more, but indeed there are ways to accomplish what you seek. Peruse the material on Meta regarding changes in username. ++Lar: t/c15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I searched for a possibility to use the name "Jowo" at jv.wikipedia.org but found no page for that. I'd like to have the name because it's the last wikipedia where I don't have it and my unified login would be complete with it. I would be glad if you could help me. Thanks in advance Jowo (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged Probation violation
This is an appaling lack of good faith and entirely inacceptable. Please retract it. As you are well aware, all pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) are subject to article probation. I'll grant some leeway in arbitration, but this is a completely unfounded smear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I've given you a great deal of leeway over the last 6 months by letting your continued personal attacks on me stand (I could have taken you to enforcement multiple times over the milliLar thing, but chose not to, and there are many other examples) and I find it interesting that you take issue with this. Gnats and camels.
However, please elaborate on why you think this is in any way an issue. It is a rebuttal of a flawed analysis, and I find it highly implausible that no one of you was aware of this article. Possible, certainly, but highly implausible. If you can suggest another wording that conveys the meaning desired, I'm very open to modification, but it's an important point that needs making. ++Lar: t/c14:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think my Lar (unit of bias) joke is somehow different from your "Wacko candidate" joke? I don't think the milli-part is mine, or that I ever used it, although I may be wrong about the later. I stand by the substance - when you entered climate change, you already had a preformed (and sadly mistaken) opinion, you were biased beyond reason and argument, and, as far as I can tell, you have not yielded an inch since, not matter how obviously wrong you are. If you think this opinion is inacceptable, I invite you to do something about it.
Sorry, but if you don't see how Since the "regulars" can't prove they weren't aware of this article (although I'd be surprised if they weren't, frankly, since JD is one of their demons, isn't he?) this argument isn't going to go very far on lack of plausibility. But the converse, that it's likely they were aware, but stood aside and left it a mess because it suited their purpose... that's much more plausible. is a failure of good faith, I cannot help you. As far as I'm concerned, JD is a third rate polemicist writing for a newspaper I don't buy that's published in a foreign country and in a weird language. I don't know if I'd even heard of the person 6 months ago - I certainly was somewhat surprised when my link in the evidence section came up blue. And while I cannot (nor have to) prove that I was not aware of the article state, I'm sure someone with sufficient DB skills can verify that it is not and never was on my watchlist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You think my Lar (unit of bias) joke is somehow different from your "Wacko candidate" joke? " Yes, in kind and in degree. It wasn't a response to a joke, it was an attack, and you used it over and over and over.
JD might be a third rate polemicist but he's a person. His BLP was a disgrace for months, and it took Jimbo saying so to get it sorted, if indeed it IS sorted. It puts paid to the notion that you guys are some wonderful editors who need a free pass to act like prats in exchange for a spiffy topic area. Your gang's editing in the topic area, taken as a whole, frankly, is below par. Your priv, we're all volunteers, but you don't get to claim special privs from others for your wonderful work. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above: I stand by the substance. You were and are biased. Your attempts to act as if you were not are plain disruptive. Sorry that I tried to pack the message with a bit of humor.
Your comment on "spiffy prats" is offensive in more than one way. In particular, I strictly refuse to settle an editor with the responsibility of fixing and maintaining articles he or she has no interest in, has never edited, and may not even be aware of. Your guilt by association claim (SA has edited the article, therefore all science-minded editors are in for it) is absurd. Neither is SA particularly active in climate science articles, nor, apparently was the problem in the article when he edited it. In fact, the article has only ~35 page views per day, and less than 30 people watch it even now, after the kerfuffle. The anonymous IPs you complain about geolocate to Sheffield and London - large population centers in the country where Delingpole writes and not, to my knowledge, associated with any of the "regulars". In short, you are fighting straw men with unreasonableness.
Your definition on "over and over again" seems to be different from mine. I'd be somewhat surprised if you can find 5 instances (individual edits, not counting typo corrections) where I used it. I'd be very surprised and buy you a beer if you can find it in 10 independent conversations (as defined by different talk page headers).
(ec)@Lar:your continued personal attacks on me I've seen you mention the "milliLar" thing, but it would be useful to show arbitrators diffs that it was ongoing, because that that's another order of magnitude from a brief incident, and the evidence page as of now doesn't reflect that. @Stephan:when you entered climate change, you already had a preformed [...] opinion; irrelevant, almost everyone does and the trick is to separate admin judgment from that; you were biased beyond reason and argument -- again, we've reached the point in this saga where this kind of assertion is for the workshop and evidence pages, not here where it can't do any good. @Lar & Stephan: I think it would be better to just respond coolly to each other on the Arb case pages, stick to the evidence and what we can draw from the evidence. It'll be less bothersome and a lot more useful. Just a thought. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
I had seen Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lar#A response to the view by 2/0, but right about that time I grew frustrated with that talkpage and stopped monitoring it. I just wanted to say thanks for your very reasonable response. While I am here - I have made the assumption that you would not be bothered by my light-hearted pun on your username, but if you have even a vague preference that I not I would be happy to refactor (email is fine). I may do so anyway in the spirit of MastCell's model-the-behaviour-you-wish-to-see proposal. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what pun? If I don't know at this remove (or can't recall) what it was I must not be too sussed about it! So I wouldn't worry were I you. And you're welcome. It did seem like a way forward, with learnings. ++Lar: t/c22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies
As you may know, I had a discussion with Guy about some reflections that I have made. In this discussion, I declared my intention to apologise to you. I note that you have since started a community ban discussion. Please realise that my post to him came before you opened this discussion. I mention this to avoid the impression that this may be the result of your proposal, and not genuine concern on my part. I explained, in detail, the situation, and subsequent exchanges that took place. Whilst my desire to apologise is, indeed, genuine, I have never been one to hide my true feelings in hope of a more melifluous outcome. Your comments on my talk page were some of the most offencive I have heard in my time here. (YMMV, of course. Probably does, in fact.) In any case, my taking offence was no excuse for my subsequent remarks. I disagreed vehemently with what you said, and did. I still do. However, nothing that you did rose to the level of being deserved of my comment that you are "a corrupt administrator". I would like to retract that statement, and apologise. Also, my comments about your hobbies, and interest in LEGOS, were egregiously out of line. I apologise for these, as well. Again, this decision on my part, to attempt to do what I feel is right, came before you posted your community ban proposal. This post is in no way an attempt to "make ammends after the fact". I have not done this with the expectation that you will, or should, change your opinion.Mk5384 (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to internalise that you have a behavioural problem here, your approach does not work, and was going to lead you to a permanent ban. This is significantly better than your previous approach, but there are still potential areas of improvement possible. I do thank you for making the effort. ++Lar: t/c13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at a number of my Workshop proposals roughly here involving Polargeo, since some mention you. Apparently my evidence on Polargeo was more than anyone else had on him, so I decided to follow through on the Workshop page. I know there were other incidents involving him, but I'm not familiar with them, so if there are some big gaps there, please mention them or perhaps make other findings or proposals. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not alleging that Throwaway85 (block log · checkuser) is connected to Hipocrite, but the account was created on August 19, 2009, and has been blocked for personal attacks/harassment and socking, a similar pattern as that of PouponOnToast’s blocks and Hipocrite’s general actions. Another similarity is that these accounts do not interact with each other, which was a pattern of some of Hipocrite’s socks.
Again, not claiming that Kindzmarauli (block log · checkuser) is a sock, but he is actively tagging old or blocked accounts as socks, primarily of users on the opposite side of content issues from Hipocrite. Although an IP user pointed out some of old socks to Kindzmarauli, he has tagged none of them. Since he claimed to be doing so to build edit count, this seems odd unless there is another motive.
Well, I would like to point out that Hipocrite has apparently used "tor" networks, which I suppose is a way to hide one's IP. Also, a user named Hipocrite posted a comment at GoRight's blog from a TOR network which indicates he is still using them. I'm not sure if this is something checkusers look for, but I wonder if the user I'd fingered earlier as a sockpuppet was using such a technique as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An aside. I read the first diff (to Hip's user page) and I don't read that as a statement that Hip uses Tor... merely deploring that Tor seems to be a focus of much activity when perhaps there are other things worth worrying about... that read could be incorrect of course. ++Lar: t/c17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I read this, "I have ceased editing with this account because it contains personally identifing information attached to me (namely, the checkuser data that is idiotically retained by the foundation), and will wait patiently for the idiotic "no logged in TOR editing" policy to dissapear before creating another account," to be that he wasn't going to edit until TOR editing was allowed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I am sorry about this but isn't this sock accusation on [[1]] on 28 June a violation of the terms of TheGoodLocusts topic ban, which ran until 11/7? Aside from it giving an indication of the general level of seriousness with which we should take tGL? --BozMotalk08:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought TGL`s sanction covered CC related pages, sock puppets are a separate thing to AGW Bozmo, and you can`t ban someone for reporting suspected socks mark nutley (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right mark, I haven't checked. I thought that the ban was on the whole topic area with exceptions for Arbcom cases and appeals, and Lar's own talk page. General pages like AfDs, talk pages, sock accusations on users based on only activity within the topic area etc I thought were clearly covered, because they gave possibilities for pointless disruption and forum shopping etc. When I have a minute I will look up the wording --BozMotalk09:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the terms of the ban, Mark, AFAICT all conversations on CC where prohibited except ones in the appeal process and arbcom deliberations. This sock puppet accusation, based entirely around CC change edits and which was used in passing to make mild PAs on a couple of other CC editors is not exempt and looks like a clear violation to me. Lar, what do you think? I think it is a shame because there does not seem to have been much thoughtful reflection on approach during the ban period. --BozMotalk09:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to think of all this. My time has been rather limited. I will say that I don't see that TGL commenting on this matter of socks has anything whatever to do with CC and thus I don't see it as a topic ban violation. I will so comment at the enforcement pages if the matter is raised there, if I notice it. I will also say that Hipocrite supposedly came clean about all this and it's all past history at this point, forgiven and forgotten. His stridency about others socking is... regrettable, but perhaps understandable (there's none so anti-smoking as the smoker who just quit, they say). But I do find his user name choice ironic and this is one of many reasons why. ++Lar: t/c12:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit less of the digging and side remarks would be helpful if things are really forgiven. Polargeo (talk)
Eh? I don't think your digs and side remarks have been that funny, taken as a whole. And certainly offering to reform isn't funny either, if you really mean it. Maybe I'm confused about what you're driving at. Feel free to be more clear. ++Lar: t/c15:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to his comment here except in one detail. Broadly he made a formal accusation of socking against WMC which looks pretty disruptive and bad faith within his probation period. All the "evidence" he cited was on CC pages and it got dismissed out of hand. Then he described it here as "fingering" (someone) with a link to a diff where he added WMC. I am not optimistic of his future valid contribution if he sets out with that kind of rubbish. But it is stale so I guess it gets rolled into the next complaint of disruptive editing on CC. --BozMotalk16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith? The account I "fingered" (not sure why you don't like that term) was created within hours of WMC's banning from Fred Singer - an area that account edited heavily with a viewpoint similar to WMC's. Not only that, the checkuser agreed that "Freakshownerd" was likely a returned user based upon my behavioral evidence. Anyway, several of WMC's friends have often bragged about how easy it is to fool checkuser - I would not be surprised if freakshownerd is using such techniques. Also, I believe I've filed a single sockpuppet investigation? I certainly haven't done it with a great deal of frequency and did it because I honestly believe Freakshonerd is a sockpuppet. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@B: I'm not sure that the use of the term "fingered" was helpful, no. But in reviewing that case, it seems to have a lot of material that justifies running a check on the ID identified (FSN). And it seems that the CU felt there was reason for it, and ran it. So I'm not sure it's all rubbish, perhaps you can clarify what was wrong with that report. ++Lar: t/c17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@L: Well here for example are a set of personal attacks and other allegations against WMC included in the CU request which are inflamatory and completely unwarranted. The sock report if you read it pretty much repeats the kind of behaviour tGL was banned for and much of it is nothing to do with the account which was CUed but a bad faith attempt to malign an editor. Read it, read it again and then tell me you think this is the work of someone who should be allowed to edit in the probation area. And remember that's the bar you are setting for how editors should treat each other because no one has been below it. --BozMotalk21:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Break it down for me, will you? I'm not seeing the personal attacks yet. Just linking to the whole report may not be enough analysis. ++Lar: t/c21:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict> Personal attacks? I admit I'm not thoroughly versed in what should be included in a SPI, but I tried to be as fair as possible - I think any mistakes I may have made are relatively minor in that regard and I certainly didn't think I was breaking any sort of probation by reporting a sockpuppet. However, looking at your top edits I find the following:
Talk:Global warming[WP] (313)
User talk:William M. Connolley[WP] (304)
Global warming[WP] (111)
User talk:Stephan Schulz[WP] (57)
In short, I don't believe a person who has edited WMC's talk page over 300 times, with a strong interest in global warming and WMC's friends, and who I recently presented evidence against at ArbCom that hopefully leads to your desysoping possesses the necessary neutrality for determining whether or not I made a personal attack against his friend. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@L. You have looked and not seen. That's enough for me, am unwatching here. I am not however impressed, sorry. As for tGL, I don't think your views are news, nor in danger of widespread adoption. --BozMotalk22:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think NPOV has been gamed in this area (and in other contentious scientific topic areas) and no amount of explaining that WEIGHT, UNDUE, RS, and so forth will fix it, nor will tinkering with the NPOV policy itself (such tinkering is subject to being undone). That's my fear, borne out by much drama in these areas. Saying straight up "science articles rely on scientific sources, end of story" I think is simpler and less gameable. It's pragmatic to override NPOV instead of sticking to the purer form. ++Lar: t/c21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just for an outside perspective, let me give you an example of how I see WP:SPOV being gamed, already, in the article I know the most about (that's not saying much). Editors of CRU documents controversy have repeatedly argued that the CRU researchers embroiled in the controversy, as scientists, represent the the scientific point of view. On these grounds they have tried to push inclusion of blog postings by scientists working for the CRU as 'reliable sources' when citing statements about the controversy (without qualification), e.g., about the accuracy of the allegations being made against themselves. By the same token they have tried to remove statements from reliable sources like the NY times, the WSJ and the ICO to the effect that these allegations are not entirely baseless. (I can provide you with links and diffs if you like.) Since scientists are not authorities on metascience, this is inappropriate. But these edits have been consistently justified with reference to WP:SPOV.
So I don't see WP:SPOV as less gameable than WP:NPOV. So much for pragmatism. And since WP:NPOV is better than WP:SPOV in principal, the former should be a principal and the latter should not. Do you disagree with this reasoning?--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's an easy one. Climategateisn't a scientific topic. No way, no how. So primacy of scientific sources wouldn't apply. End of discussion. What's a scientific topic is gameable, but less so than NPOV, oddly. At least IMHO. You may not agree, which is fine but what really gets up my nose are those who think I am less than serious here, or who ascribe some ulterior motive. That's not how I operate. ++Lar: t/c22:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as climate change skeptics have argued that the science displayed in the documents is faulty, and insofar as scientists have responded to these claims by going over the science (as they have), Climategate qualifies as subject solely to WPSPOV per the clause of your principal that states "AGW articles covering the science (or partly covering the science) should be written from the WP:SPOV" (my emphasis). I agree that the real controversy of Climategate is not scientific in nature and think it's unfortunate that skeptics have chosen it as a rallying flag, but whether I like it or not they have, and because they have, Climategate "cover[s] the science (or partly cover[s] the science)." Perhaps this clause could be reworked? I could see many more endorsements if it's fixed to avoid this loophole.
I am exceedingly open to improving the wording of this or any of my proposals. Perhaps here is a better place to thrash that out than in the proposal discussion threads, what do you think? Please let me know what you think might sort it out. As for diffs, evidence is closed supposedly, but I think there's value in surfacing them. Perhaps here first (as well)... ++Lar: t/c23:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed all but the last and find them concerning. They do show a pattern of behavior that needs to stop. In particular, I do see gaming of whether this article is science or primarily science, or something else. So, how to fix the proposal? ++Lar: t/c15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning? These are detailled debates about sources. The sort of debates that should be encouraged on wikipedia. I am very concerned that you are concerned about them. Polargeo (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Properly framed debates about sources are good. Improperly framed ones are not. I think you need to read the threads again, carefully, and with an eye to the tone taken, as well as with an eye to the specific issue HiP raises, that of claiming the topic of the article is science and then insisting that certain sources be included and others excluded. HiP makes the point that gaming (of what sort of article it was) was going on. If that isn't concerning to you, well, that concerns me as well. ++Lar: t/c15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the threads with no preconceived ideas and saw nothing to concern me. That is not the same as me agreeing with any of the stances taken. Any questions you may have can be addressed by entering into the discussions Heyitspeter has linked to. But that is something that I understand you do not wish to do because it may jepordise your uninvolved status. Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Polargeo. The problem is probably that I linked to sections and not diffs. In several cases the 'concerning' edits do not even start popping up until 5-10 comments have been written, and still then not in a single chunk. That makes the links difficult to parse. To make things very clear, I should begin with a link to the description of the kind of problematic editing that these sections demonstrate [3]. I find that if you scan them for the unfortunately very usual suspects you find WP:F5 violations regularly and quickly, but you aren't an active editor of articles in the CC topic area so that didn't help you on your first runthrough.
I extracted a small selection from the last two sections I linked to here. It's been removed presently as past the evidence deadline. You can read the rest of the section tied to the preceding diff as indication that these comments represent a longterm pattern of editing, and by editors that ought to know better.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
seemingly new user complains about me - to Gwen - amazing coincidence
I made a neutral post [4] to be precise, to all who had opined at thefirst of 5 AfDs in a year on an article. I carefully followed the rules, making sure that I made no selection at all as to who was notified, and that my notification was as neutral as conceivable. Out of the blue, a new user [5] pops off to Gwen Gale to complain <g>. Aside from the fact that he has no interactions with me, nor with Gwen', in the past, and that he miraculously os fully conversant with WP policies, and that his own user page says
" I have another account. The other account has a name that is really really good at only two things: being extremely cool, and insidiously convincing everyone that sees it that they know just exactly what kind of an editor -this guy- is, before they even read my edits.
So at the expense of a small amount of extremely cool, I hope to be taken as just another editor, without the speeding baggage train that is my other username. It is probably doomed to failure, as my writing style is also very distinctive. It may never be used, as my arguments are extremely good anyway, and I hope one day to meet people on WP who aren't easily confused by their prejudices. At least with the other username I can identify those who get an instant attitude quickly and effectively.}}"
Of course it's a sock of some sort, and a troublemaking one at that. As you point out, it claims it (in 9 layers of collapse, how annoying). You need to convince a current CU to run a check, but that should not be hard. At first read, there's a chance they are trying to look like they are a sock of someone they actually are not a sock of. (My initial read was that they were trying to sound like they were Hipocrite, so they probably are not actually Hip...) Which is disruptive. File an SPI. Also I thing Gwen is wrong about "too many". ++Lar: t/c14:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen earlier "instructed" me not to file such investigations (funny thing - more than half the people I suspected of running such have since been blocked for them <g>) She, meanwhile, finds the whole bit to be not worth pursuing. And I am glad to have your opinion thereon - it is in line with that of User:Kotniski who appears quite valued and experienced as an editor. H was not active in the Palin article, so I doubt it is he. Odds are exceedingly high it is one who has edited on Peace flag, Sarah Palin and possibly on the AfD as well (hard for multiple personas to avoid !voting when they have not been found out, isn't it?) Collect (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a binding instruction by Gwen? If I were a CU, based on what I saw, I'd run this. Something smells fishy. You can quote me to whomever. LMK if there is more you want from me. ++Lar: t/c20:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if Gwen follows this here - but she blocked the sock <g>. And still insists that "everyone" should not mean "everyone" (that is, only a handful of notices is proper, but following the explicit rules is not <g>) Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to have a word? Seems to me that if there are concrete criteria for inclusion in a notification, and they are reasonable, it's OK if that means 50 people get notified. That seems better than restricting to some subset chosen non mechanically. ++Lar: t/c20:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If she fails to understand my position, then I doubt anyone else will convince her otherwise <g> I was just trying to follow what the rules are to the letter, and a sock decided to mysteriously choose her as the one to complain to. Somehow, I think many admins would have been higher in clue level on this <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link to Reuters article - snippet: "The U.S. Geological Survey said the first and largest quake was very shallow, with a verified epicenter only 6.2 miles (10 km) deep. It was located 55 miles (85 km) southwest of Lar, close to the southern coast." - I had no idea you were in Iran! Don't let the State Department know! Kylu (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe sometimes, but right now I think you could find the Liberty Bell about 55 miles southwest of me, give or take. As for Lar (Iran) that article occasionally gets edited by my most boring stalker... presumably just so he knows I know he's still around. ++Lar: t/c01:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess your ears were burning? Making snide remarks about me on Stajinara not exciting enough without me there to take the bait? Troll someone else, please. ++Lar: t/c04:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would my ears be burning? I've never edited the page you linked? I was merely pointing out yet another example of how you treat editors here. RoscoHead (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is not the page you linked. You, as an admin of such experience, and with all the kerfuffle about climate change at the moment, should realise how important it is to make sure of the accuracy and relevance of any links referenced. Instead you just go on your merry way acting like you're special, treating other editors as though they're not as good as you. RoscoHead (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. So, then what DID bring you here? How'd you know you were being talked about if you're not stalking? As for your theories of mind, I think you're confused. I give people the respect they deserve, and a bit more. ++Lar: t/c12:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I didn't know I was being talked about, in fact I assumed I wasn't. I was simply commenting on how you treat other editors. Does being a WP:TPW equate to stalking now? If so, you seem to have quite a few "stalkers". And did I mention how hypocritical it is to ask me to stop trolling, right after you did it yourself? Oh, and BTW, the link is STILL wrong, maybe you need to do a wiki refresher course. Oh stuff it, why don't I go fix your mistakes myself? RoscoHead (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually love having lots of WP:TPWs, as most of them are very helpful and positive, although apparently we have at least one bad apple. As a note, you're giving them (all 350 of them) a great little show. So let's try again. Why did you edit Lar, Iran as your very first edit here if you're not stalking/trolling me? That's pretty blatant, really, and you gave away the whole game. Also, do not change the words of others again, please. ++Lar: t/c23:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really Larry, that irrational response does not become you. I admit, the first page I edited (over 4 years ago! How time flies!) I probably found by typing your username into the search (I really don't remember, it's so long ago), then following links that looked interesting I found a page with some vandalism, so I reverted it. Stalking? Hardly. And how can it be trolling unless YOU are stalking MY contributions????? And I didn't change anyone's words. We can keep this show going as long as YOU want, though I'm guessing one of your cabal mates will suggest it's time to stop fairly soon. RoscoHead (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's time for you to stop now. You've failed to respond constructively to the concerns I've raised, so we are done. Stop editing my talk page. ++Lar: t/c00:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Larry, I answered your direct question, yet you've failed to answer most of mine. But no matter, let's try again. Why did you post "As for Lar(link since "fixed") that article occasionally gets edited by my most boring stalker... presumably just so he knows I know he's still around."? That's pretty blatant, really, no matter WHO you were referring to. RoscoHead (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong about what mate? You asked were he had posted, i told you he posted in the uninvolved section in an RFE about KDP and another editor mark nutley (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so he did. I left diffs of him doing so on his talk. He subsequently removed the commment entirely rather than leave it in the proper place on the page, but he posted, then edit warred to preserve the place. As for what punishment would be appropriate? That seems a rather argumentative phrasing. ++Lar: t/c12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"will be moved to the section above." Why was this not done until Lar did it at [7]? Is there a reason why others were permitted to move WMC's comments to an entirely different section than the one that is the sanction for posting out of place, exactly? Are the rules that hard to understand? Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the diffs I provided. Weakopedia moved it, appropriately, and then WMC edit warred to restore it. Only then did I move it again. ++Lar: t/c12:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make little to no sense, Anyone can move comments, and everyone knows not to post in that section, to do so is disruptive, i just moved your comment in fact mark nutley (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did, carefully. Weakopedia did not move it appropriately - he moved it to WMC's response section, which is not what people are directed to do with comments by !uninvolved admins. Are the rules that hard to understand? Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I suggest you don't respond further to any of this (including the RFE). It speaks for itself, and any further response from you will be used against you. That's how it works. ATren (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the Committee or the wider community wishes to take action against me for what they believe to be my misinterpretation of policy, than that is perfectly acceptable. ArbCom has the proposed decision page to work with, and anyone can submit an RFC against me, which I will waive certification requirements for. If either come to a conclusion that my actions have been inappropriate, then of course I will step back or resign my adminship. However, I ask that these kind of posts that Jayen466 made above at 12:48 and 13:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC) not be made. Either follow through or don't, but please refrain from grandstanding. NW(Talk)13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reasoned reply. I have no desire for your bits, I have no desire to see you put through an RfC (knowing just how much fun they are!!!). But I do think you need to step back a bit and take a look at the pattern of your actions here. You're a good admin, and a good CU, and you've done a lot of great work in the past but these particular actions (unprotecting something as soon as Rlevse left town apparently because WMC asked you to, blocking MN but not the others, and some other recent actions that also struck me as problematic) don't stand up to scrutiny and don't meet your usual standards.... they make you look at best sympathetic to one side (and not necessarily uninvolved if we apply standards that some try to apply to other admins...) if not an actual faction member. Take that for what it's worth. ++Lar: t/c13:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good checkuser! Am I the reason that the Scibaby SPI has been held up for so long? Nah, it's probably the lack of the checkuser tools ;)
In any case, even when I have disagreed with you, I have always respected your opinion. I am planning on taking a few days off this matter entirely to reflect on my actions thus far, and I would appreciate your thoughts on how to proceed. NW(Talk)23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mark (by the way, "don't be a tit" is an interesting expression, can't say I have ever heard that before). Still, always looking for ways to improve, and what better way to do that than to ask those who disagree with you. NW(Talk)23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, I would not want to see NW desysopped or sanctioned at all for that matter. The fact that he is listening to Lars' advice and taking it to heart is the mark of a mature and thoughtful leader and something Wiki could use more of. There were a couple of actions I think NW may have been a little too hasty on but I don't know the reason for that and there's no reason to think it couldn't be corrected now that it has been brought to his attention. The only reason I'm making this post here is because I was the one who brought up NW's actions in the first place and I do not want it to turn into a witch hunt, nor do I want it to be construed as my intent or desire that NW be sanctioned. Minor4th01:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were a CU already. Maybe just a clerk. I think stepping back and taking a long hard look here would be worthwhile. There are factions active here, I really don't think that's denyable at this point. Look at your actions and see if they don't give the impression that you're on one side. The unprotect because WMC asked you... Maybe it seemed the right thing to do at the time but it just looked really bad. I'm with M4, I don't want you sanctioned, I don't want an RfC. I just want the old NW back. ++Lar: t/c01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found this about as baffling as many of your comments. I don't know what you mean. You talk of the "elephant in the room", and of a powerful faction out for "revenge". This doesn't correspond to anything I know of in around eight months of looking at edits in this area. Please explain what you mean. Name names, stop smearing. --TS00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure how exactly to make it clearer. You said you think that the enforcement doesn't make things better and the case is proof. I disagree. It makes things better, but there still is a need for a case, even so. Did you want to deny there are factions operating in this area? I've named names in my proposals on the workshop page. ++Lar: t/c00:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tony would like you to name names and provide evidence. Most likely you've already done this and could merely link to the relevant evidence section. That way people know whether or not you are accusing them of wrongdoing, and on what basis. I truly have no opinion* on whether WP:GS/CC is helping or hurting, but I am hopeful that the arbitration case will move things to a better place. JehochmanTalk00:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) * At this time. I may have had opinions in the past, but they are now obsolete.[reply]
Addendum. And some folk who proposed other names suggested some of mine didn't belong or weren't the worst. I'm fine with that. Views differ. But only the "deniers" deny altogether that there are factions operating. ++Lar: t/c01:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that because I'm keeping the subject at arm's length I haven't paid much attention to the arbitration evidence. I would like a straightforward response.
I know why the probation was proposed, and I felt some dismay when it immediately went in an entirely different direction from that originally conceived. The original proposer, indeed, departed over the issue. There has been some success in attracting some admins to the area, but the use of their time has been poor because those administrators who want to take action in the area are being forced to engage in long discussion, and those editors who are causing problems are given a pulpit from which to voice their prejudices. The area badly needs all admins to be proactive in enforcing Wikipedia's core policies without having to engage in repetitious debate. Liberal blocks and bans at the outset would have convinced all involved that the editing area was not to be trifled with. This is not what happened. --TS01:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree that a first on the scene approach would have worked as well, I think we'd have a lot more infighting among admins and racing to impose things by getting there first instead of the reasoned approach we have. But I could be wrong. I'm not sure what other response to give you, Tony, as you seem to have posted a view in your followup rather than a question. I understand your view but I don't agree. Which is fine. We still get along. ++Lar: t/c01:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
That was very nice, what you said about me at Chris' RfA (and I also liked your assessment of administrator trials, etc.). Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as you commented at BLPN that a racist claim was weakly cited and I agrred and removed it and it was replaced, a discussion has arisen here, would you let me know what you think, when the content was replaced I did at least attribute it which has at least exposed the un notable worth of the opinion. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per suggestion here I am contacting you as an Admin about this problem. Going on vacation in two days and probably will be largely offline for 7-10 days, so don’t want to initiate a WP:ANI or WP:ARBPIA on this.
Hi Lar. RTLamp has made a number of personal attacks against Carol, insinuating that she's antisemitic because of her edits concerning Gilad Atzmon, a very polarizing figure. I've warned him against personal attacks, but he doesn't seem to get the point (see, for example, User talk:RTLamp#No personal attacks). Most recently, he's been taunting her about something she wrote (evidently off-Wiki) about the media being mostly controlled by Jews. In my opinion, he's been given adequate warning about personal attacks (and he's redacted a few of them at Talk:Gilad Atzmon) that I would have blocked him had I not been involved at that page. I hope this helps. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there new incidents post this request to me? I'm not seeing a lot of activity on the account. Perhaps for now things can be left? If further issues arise, please advise. ++Lar: t/c18:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is ongoing with this editor making excuses for it when in fact it is clear he has mocked and harassed me, not politely pointed out on my talk page something he happened upon, as might have been appropriate. See this diff. And Malik Shabazz is threatening to sanction me (and him) for responding, so I won't further. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, Carol, is that every time you feel a need to defend your honor, RTLamp feels a need to respond to you. The two of you need to drop it already. That doesn't excuse his personal attacks. It just means that further messages will only inflame the situation. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk23:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to resit being baited, but that's what you need to do, Carol. Make your own behavior above reproach, don't respond to provocation, and wherever possible, go on about your business. Then, if the harassment continues, it will be dealt with. But if Malik suggests you need to back away, you probably do. His counsel is often quite wise. ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 29 July 2010
Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility clearly lists baiting as a problem. It's really a pattern of two Single Purpose Accounts (User:Drsmoo and User:RTLamp) continuing to attack and insult the subject of the BLP as an antisemite (even though he's a Jew) in a way to load guilt by association upon and thereby discourage neutral editors from getting involved. (After it was made clear to them they could be blocked for directly accusing an editor of it.) The latest attack seems to have chased away three of them. This tactic also has been used to discourage people from commenting on noticeboards on specific issues.
I can't even remember all the ways I've tried to deal with this problem over last couple years, including wikietiquette and admin assistance. Even Atzmon's own OTRS Complaint that led to an Admin cleaning up the article was edit warred by these people. Now RTLamp dredges up a scary situation where I was harassed like this in increasing ferocity for two years on various libertarian and peace lists by a rapid Israel supporter who has boasted about all the guns he owns and written repeatedly about how he'd like me dead. Finally I made a stupid public comment in reply to him which he distributed around the internet. With RTLamp's newest attacks about this stupid email - and the fact he still has quotes from that email on his user page and a series of edits on his talk page - I have to wonder where it escalates to next. But looking at WP:Civility I can see I never have tried Request for Comment on user conduct. Maybe that's best thing to do, short of a WP:ANI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I don't want to waste any more time on these people trying to get the system to work, so since I just have a couple more noncontroversial entries, and then it's just a matter of reverting obvious policy violations, maybe I'll just stay away from the talk page altogether, except for short necessary messages. There is no possibility for real consensus with these kind of editors and I can't believe I've tried as long as I have. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I warned him. If the problematic behavior continues, further steps will be taken. It would be helpful if you were on your best behavior meanwhile (well, it's always helpful but especially so in this case). ++Lar: t/c23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will take a look shortly. If it wasn't for your own involvement would you have issued a block already? ++Lar: t/c19:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented further there. If there is a next time, please let me (or another uninvolved admin) know before you issue another warning, because warning time is over. ++Lar: t/c20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
Hi Lar, It was me, who deleted the other editor message from my talk page. I explained it to them in my response from yesterday, but I should have probably changed the title of the message as well. I did it now, and I am sorry about misunderstanding. Please accept my apology. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not when they start vandalizing the other articles I write, and making bogus AIV/SPI reports. Wikipedia is supposed to be the place where everyone can edit, with civility and common decency. I haven't seen too much of that from the activists. I also haven't seen them held to account for misusing and violating the rules. So I'll go edit in the rest of Wiki, where RS are just that and not evaluated on whether they support the activist's position or not, and where I don't have to deal with the snide edit summaries like the one you left. Regards, GregJackPBoomer!00:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you referring to by "bogus AIV/SPI reports"? Do you mean this report and this report concerning a Scibaby sockpuppet? How is that "bogus" and how does it affect you in any way whatsoever? The only way it could affect you is if you were the sockpuppeteer. Is that what you're saying? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO, that kind of maligning can fly on YOUR talk page (where I note you recently deleted a thread instead of answering a legitimate question about what you were driving at) but it won't fly here. You know better than to accuse Greg of being Scibaby. Theoretically. The report filed against Greg and Minor looks like it was rather out of order. Don't backpedal now. Filing bogus reports is a tactic of your faction, after all. ++Lar: t/c04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What report "filed against Greg and Minor4th"? I've not filed anything against either of them. Seriously, if you think I've filed reports against either of them, please point out where. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I see the twists now. Let's work through them all:
Two posts up you are backhandedly saying either the report you filed recently alleging Scibaby socking either wasn't bogus, or that Greg is Scibaby. That's a false dichotomy. That's what I referred to when I said "that kind of maligning", it's abuse of language and logic to use rhetoric like that. I stand by "you know better than to accuse Greg of being Scibaby". You do know better, or should. In fact, the report wasn't very well founded, in my considered judgment as a CU. (although I of course haven't run it since I am not running any CU queries this year).
Next: "The report filed against Greg and Minor looks like it was rather out of order". It was. You didn't file it but it IS symptomatic of factional behavior to file reports as a means of exerting control or intimidation. That report fits.
So while you didn't file against Greg, I don't see where you're saying you have any problem with it either. Your request for clarification asks a question about a statement not made by me. That too is a typical factional behavior, to twist things around till you can ask a question that's not easily answerable, one designed to make the recipent look bad, but which isn't actually a valid question. For shame. ++Lar: t/c15:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are not the ones. But the only problems I have ever had on Wiki is due to zealot activists in the CC/GW arena, that pretend to be neutral. I was blocked for putting information in an article about Connolley, using Nature as one of the 5 or 6 sources. I was told that it was not a RS - but it was from the same article that was used in the Wikipedia article to show the accuracy of the project. The other sources were all main-stream media. But since it involved a CC activist, normal BLP rules don't apply. At the same time, I was sent to an SPI where a checkuser cleared me. A favored tactic of your buddies, I've since learned.
The ones I was talking about were merely for harassment purposes and were quickly ended by admins outside of the CC activists group. You play innocent, but in one article you made approx. 30 edits in a short period of time, including about 7 reversions, all to support the activist POV - but no admin will touch you. One admin told me privately that he always checks to see if an incident involves the CC zealots, and if it does he runs away because he's not going to deal with the harassment in other areas.
I'm not going to do anything with the articles that your groups holds hostage, so I would appreciate you finding someone else to be incivil to, or to make your snide remaks to, like the above. Tell your buddies too. I have better things to do than deal with you and your friends. GregJackPBoomer!02:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, could you give me a pointer to where you were told that Nature was not a reliable source? That seems well over the line, so I'd like to look into it. MastCellTalk03:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(@GregJackP) Just a nudge that I'd be interested in looking into the Nature issue if you can give me an idea of where this took place. I'll follow up on your talk page. MastCellTalk17:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW -- Greg, I understand why you wouldnt want to place your other articles etc in jeopardy and it was a little heavy handed of Lar to warn you for edit warring when there was really only one edit warrior against multiple others who were not edit warring Hi Lar :) BUT it's your high principles and idealistic vision that is so sorely needed in contentious areas like CC. Plus, I know you have a thick skin and staying power. Don't write it off completely -- not just yet. Minor4th01:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I see an edit war, I tend to warn all the people actively editing at the time. Even the blameless ones. Perhaps in this case I should have only warned ChrisO, but I decided to err on the side of cautioning everyone. ++Lar: t/c03:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I knew why you did it, but that can be a little disheartening to be painted with the same brush as the culprit. No worries. Minor4th04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a warning. I am sorry if it gave offense, I would not want to discourage you from editing. You have a lot of potential, and you've made significant contributions already. (compare MY article space editing lately... pathetic) ++Lar: t/c04:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd rather get a warning before I started edit warring, than to get blocked, when I do. Trust me, I know.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider
Lar, I am afraid you are out of line here [8]. The situation on Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley had been caused by Minor4th rather blatantly tendentious edits elsewhere [9]; when taken to task for these, he had reacted with a long string of wikilawyering and badmouthing his opponents [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], culminating in the fabricated accusation of wikistalking [16]. Hipocrite quite rightly criticized him for the latter. In this context, the expression, "I'm deadly serious", in response to a rhetorical "Do you guys think you're clever or funny?" is not objectionable in the least. Not impolite, not incivil, not aggressive, not "strident". Not even mildly so. If anything, the incivility was on Minor4th's side.
If in this situation you are seen to have nothing better to do than to go and "warn" Hipocrite, and follow that up with blustering about block threats and "I'll be back" rhetoric, I cannot help the feeling that these editors' perception that you are not as neutral as you think you are is not quite baseless. Think about it. You need to reconsider your approach here. Indeed, this exchange on Hipocrite's page can very well be seen as wikihounding. Fut.Perf.☼07:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious why you would label this [17] as blatant tendentious editing when it is neutral, well sourced, relevant to the context and was discussed among three editors in detail on the talk page. The warning to Hipocrite was appropriate, as nothing is "deadly serious" on Wikipedia. Minor4th08:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there were two problems, one not so serious and one quite serious. The not so serious one was that your "because" clause left the following subclause grammatically outside the scope of the attribution; as a result, the claim that "the investigations failed to adequately address..." ended up unhedged as a claim of fact in Wikipedia's own voice. But that's just an inadvertent good-faith mistake through poor choice of wording. The more serious thing was your choice of material: you knew perfectly well that the reviews had found both positive and negative responses (both sourceable to the same level of reliable sources), as these positive and negative responses had been discussed and quoted at great length on the other article, on which you had participated. You deliberately chose to present only the negative ones. There is simply no way I can reconcile this with the concept of a wikipedian striving for neutral coverage in good faith. This was not just failure to attain NPOV (which is not problematic, it happens all the time); it was implicit refusal to strive for NPOV. As such, that edit alone was in fact block-worthy. Fut.Perf.☼08:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"that edit alone was in fact block-worthy" ... Oh my. So can we expect a string of block recommendations from you over all the other edits that "refuse to strive for NPOV"? I've got a list of names you can look at, although it's far from complete. As for the rest, thanks for your view, Futperf, I'll take it under advisement. However, Hipocrite needed a warning. That he reacted with bluster is symptomatic of the issues with his behavior. As I have said. ++Lar: t/c13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you know of any recent edits by any of those opponents of yours that are of comparable abysmal quality as the one I just analysed, let me know. As for Hypocrite's reaction, to me it indicates first and foremost that he felt harassed and severely provoked by you, and he had some reason to. It's not good to first provoke somebody with spurious and groundless "warnings", and then point to their angry reaction to prove that the warning was necessary ex post facto. Your conduct in this issue does seem to fan the flames more than it pacifies things. Fut.Perf.☼13:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I was discussing with Lar was, in fact, of a completely different kind: article edits that are glaringly indefensible in terms of overt tendentiousness. Don't change the topic. Fut.Perf.☼14:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with any of that characterization, (specifically that Minor4th or Greg were in any way being "tendentious", or that this is a "competely different topic", since those edits are highly problematic, taken as a whole, and I think GregJackP raises a germane issue. If you wish to retain credible standing with me, you're going to need to address it rather than be dismissive. Would you care to try? ++Lar: t/c14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you don't see how Minor's edit was openly tendentious, I am not sure whether I care very much what standing I have with you. Fut.Perf.☼15:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Future Perfect at Sunrise: It is unfortunate that it's now become obvious that your standing with me is so low, but that's what is to be expected from certain factional admins, I guess. I'll give your future input appropriate consideration. Your behavior is tending back toward the sort that got your bit pulled the last time, you know. You might want to keep that in mind. ++Lar: t/c15:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is regrettable, since I have always respected you, but I have to come to the conclusion that your perception of both yourself and others in this topic domain is severely clouded. Regrettable, but I guess the stress involved in trying to manage such an ugly disputed area can ultimately lead to this. I'd sincerely hope you might take a break from it and I'm sure we'll soon have a good basis of understanding again, once you get some distance. Until then, fortunately, my standing as an uninvolved admin in this matter, unlike yours, is unsullied. Fut.Perf.☼15:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, I think you've got that last bit exactly the wrong way around. You are tipping your hand as part of the faction with your recent actions. The only faction I belong to is the one that deplores factional behavior. I think you need to tend to your own behavior first. ++Lar: t/c15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments. ChrisO made 28 edits to one article in a 24 hour period, including 7 or 8 reverts, and of course, added another SPI (and his evidence consisted entirely of "the usual") - prior to a checkuser with no real evidence of sockpuppetry, other than the fact that the editor removed unsourced conclusions from the article (and asked for references). ChrisO also inaccurately stated that the editor was a "confirmed" puppet - and there still hasn't been a CU done. Of course, the suspected puppet is blocked, without a CU or evidence (other than "the usual"). During that same period, Minor4th and I made exactly one edit each to the article. Hardly a tendentiousness series of edits on Minor4th's part. It is a double standard and you should be ashamed to state otherwise. Regards, GregJackPBoomer!15:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this is the same tactic FPAS used on me before, to silence me - a block, followed by an SPI. BTW, I was cleared of being a sock or puppetmaster. GregJackPBoomer!15:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear to separate the specific from the general. Specifically there seems to be some confusion about the more recent SPI reports and who raised what, which it would be good to resolve so that there are not misstatements. But generally speaking, raising SPI reports is one of the tactics that we see employed by factional editors from time to time. Especially if they have a CU, or CU clerk ally, but even without one, it happens (as some participants in the case point out, SciBaby has been a bit of a useful bogeyman to some folk for quite a while (he's real, and he's problematic but the high rate of false positives suggests bogeyman). Now, raising SPI reports is also an extremely legitimate and important function of any editor of good faith who sees things that need investigation, so this charge of using SPI for political advantage needs not to be bandied about lightly. What I have said, above, is that I've seen this faction raise reports I felt were questionable. I made no specific allegation about recent reports. But I do have to wonder about FPAS's report and much of the rest of his actions relating to you and Minor4th around that time. As it turns out I've been contacted about FPAS in a completely unrelated matter and I now feel like my hands are tied on that, since he's come here and raised a (rather spurious) ruckus. ++Lar: t/c15:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to drop me a line per e-mail if you prefer. Obviously, the least I have a right to know is what this is about. Fut.Perf.☼15:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you stated that there is a "high rate of false positives". What exactly is the rate of false positives? And what do you consider a "high" rate of false positives? These are not trick questions - there have been a lot of charges and counter-charges around sockpuppet investigations, so I'd like to know what basis you're using for these statements. MastCellTalk20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think anything over 5% or so is a high rate. I think we're well over that but I don't have exact numbers. Now, theoretically, it's just a wiki, no harm done, the user wrongly tagged can work to clear their name, etc. But how many do? In this area I'd rather have a much lower rate of false positives. I find it troublesome that there seems to be this claim that "any new user showing up and espousing a skeptic view" is == "Scibaby". That has a chilling effect. ++Lar: t/c20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the two users turned up IP commonalities, as they know each other in real life, and also edit the same topics, I would say that an SPI was perfectly reasonable to file for anyone who did not know of the real life connection. Or do you disagree? NW(Talk)15:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below. An SPI would not have necessarily been unreasonable -- it was the timing, in connection with two bad blocks related to William M. Connolley, that shows FPAS as trigger happy and partisan. Minor4th16:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As a CU, I feel the grounds for a check were clearly there, it's the circumstances around the matter I find problematic. CUs are normally just supposed to evaluate requests on the merits of what is presented to them, so I would have, not knowing anything, run it too. But now that the bigger picture is visible, I'm concerned. ++Lar: t/c20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see what appears to be a WP:BLP violation here[18] but if we permanently blocked every editor who made a sourcing mistake, there wouldn't be very many editors left. Scibaby was apparently blocked here[19] by an admin who was later stripped of his adminship due to abuse of admin tools. Of course, if Scibaby's violations were severe enough, they could have been expunged from the record. Or perhaps they're under another account. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for clarification
Lar, you said above, "The report filed against Greg and Minor looks like it was rather out of order. Don't backpedal now. Filing bogus reports is a tactic of your faction, after all." I've never filed a report against Greg and Minor4th in my life. Please clarify where and when you think I filed such a report. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it and retract or clarify as necessary, thank you for bringing it to my attention. While you're here, why did you remove without answer the question that Cla68 asked you? He was seeking clarification on something. I found it interesting and germane as well. Would you like to answer it here instead? If you are seeking clarification from others, it's only a reasonable expectation that you provide it when asked, don't you think? ++Lar: t/c14:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the thing about the Greg/Minor SPI report is easy to clarify: I filed it. That was right after Greg and Minor had campaigned together on Sarah's (IIRC) user RFC, and after that didn't go their way created the unspeakable Administrator abuse on Wikipedia, when I had to block them both for edit-warring over BLP violations directed against WMC. That was, incidentally, the first admin action I took in anything tangentially related to climate disputes in ages. Fut.Perf.☼14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the mention of WMC was supported by sources such as The New Yorker, Canada Free Press, Nature (the article noted above used in the Wikipedia article). Additional refs that I wasn't able to get listed in time were CBS News, ABC News (Australia), and the Telegraph. It was completely within BLP policy, in that negative information was supported by multiple, independent, verifiable and reliable sources. I grant the the article it was in was crap and should have been deleted, but the information on WMC was not a BLP violation. GregJackPBoomer!15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "unspeakable," but the article was bad and should have been deleted. It was ill-advised on my part, and I have no problems with saying that the article was crap, and not to my normal standards. GregJackPBoomer!15:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you decline to answer, then? On what basis do you decline to address a reasonable request for clarification? "I'm not X's monkey" isn't actually a reason.... Unless you're willing to accept "I'm not your monkey" in declining to clarify your reasonable requests for clarification to me, that is. You can't reasonably have higher expectations of others than they do of you. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard of "not your business"? Whereas if you make false accusations against me, that is very much my business? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved admin, I find that your actions are very much my business. For the record I've not made any false accusations against you. You'll want to retract that, I think. ++Lar: t/c15:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you just accuse me of filing reports against GregJackP and Minor4th, which Fut. Perf. has told you he filed? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Chris, no, he didn't, not literally. This was all a sequence of double or triple (good-faith or intentional) misunderstandings on several sides. Greg complained about "bogus" SPI reports that had been filed against him (presumably meaning mine). You misunderstood as if he must be referring to something you did, so you explained that you only filed reports about Scibaby, and sarcastically asked him why he would be bothered about those. Lar, in another (rather non-AGF-y) misunderstanding, chose to parse your irony literally as if you were actually suggesting Greg might be Scibaby. Then he began to rant about bad SPIs being generally something "your faction" did. But he didn't accuse you personally of one. Fut.Perf.☼18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, that's not entirely correct, though I can understand the misunderstanding with everything else that has been posted. The bogus SPI and AIV were filed by an IP who at the same time was vandalizing an article I had written and which was going through a GAR. Other admins CSD'd both reports, as they were blatent and obvious vandalism. It did not mean the one filed by FPAS, although it is the only one now left visible. Presumably that is what caused Lar to look at that one, and as I have commented here, it appears that the SPI that FPAS filed was in relation to the block of well-sourced material that he didn't like in regards to WMC. That also appears to be the same standard that is being used in the current issue, where you made 28 edits and 7-8 reverts in a 24 hour period, Minor4th made one, yet FPAS is claiming that Minor4th is the problem. Also not addressed was the incivility issues, presumably due to a factionalist approach to the matter. FPAS has still not commented on either of those issues, nor on the apparent double standard. Regards, GregJackPBoomer!18:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it appears to me that Law was commenting on your not answering this:
Heh, I had quite forgotten about that IP vandal the other day. (Even though it was me who reverted him [20]). Didn't occur to me you meant that one. Sorry I didn't block him immediately back then, but when I came across him it looked as if he had stopped for a few minutes after being warned. Seems somebody else got him ten minutes later. I'm sorry you felt so stressed about that incident. (It seems though that this was somebody unrelated to the climate situation, right?) Fut.Perf.☼18:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that it was you that had reverted him, I saw the original posts and later that they had been removed, but didn't check to see which admins did it. Thank you for that. I'm not as sure that it is not related to CC/GW. GregJackPBoomer!19:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since it happened again today. It only happens when I comment on something that touches CC/GW, so it seems like too much of a coincidence. GregJackPBoomer!19:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar I wish you would look into FPAS' SPI and blocks of both me and Greg over Connolley related material. Incidentally, I wouldnt even be aware of the global warming topic if it wasnt for these actions by FP. Her statement that i was BLP edit warring is flat out wrong. She removed sourced informatiom about Connolley from an article -- I improved the references and took out information that was in dispute and toned town the language, and I was blocked by FPAS for "persistent BLP violations". Turns out the problem was the fact that anything negative was said about Connolley at all. Thats apparently a BLP violation in FPAS' book, even if the negative information is accurate and well sourced. Let me recap: I made ONE edit which improved refs and toned down language and which was well sourced, and for that I was blocked by FPAS for persistent BLP violations. Greg was then blocked for defended me! I had no idea who Connolley even was at that time. FPAS then started the SPI while Greg and I were both blocked -- the appearance certainly was that it was a factionalist attempt to silence critics of William M. Connolley. It was the timing of the SPI with questionable evidence that is cause for concern. In general, I dont disagree with NW that an SPI at some point may have been reasonable because Greg and I do edit many of the same topic areas and we are friends in real life -- again, it was the bad blocks by FPAS and immediate SPI, all what appears to be a zealous attempt to protect WMC, that calls this admin's partisan actions into question. Minor4th16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned with that whole sequence of events. But I'm not clear what good my looking into it will do. I've found Fut surprisingly resistant to input. ++Lar: t/c13:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple. The article, written jointly by Greg and Minor, contained the absurdly false claim that WMC had committed mass abuse of his administrator status by deleting "over 500 articles" and blocking "over 2,000 individuals who [...] took positions that he disagreed with". Do you deny that was a BLP violation? (Before anybody objects: yes, there was an attribution of "according to..." in there, but it was not worded in a way that put into doubt the factuality of the claim.) So, this BLP problem was brought up on the article talk page and on ANI, I think first by Dougweller. I then removed the claim from the article, clearly marking my removal as an act of BLP enforcement. I also warned Minor on his talk page, again clearly pointing him to the BLP policy. He chose to ignore my warning and reistated it, so I blocked him. Then Greg reinstated it again, so I blocked him too. Both blocks were reviewed both individually and on ANI, and upheld. Actually, Minor's block was extended to indef by another administrator, because he had threatened he would continue re-inserting the claim. While dealing with these blocks, I noticed the striking pattern of two accounts that apparently weren't doing anything but supporting each other across a wide range of different articles, so I filed the SPI. I later unblocked both users on assurances they wouldn't reinsert the BLP violation. I stand by every step of this. Fut.Perf.☼14:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You conveniently omit some facts. When the info was pulled, the talk page discussion focused on one factor, that Solomon was not a reliable source. That reference was removed from the material, as were the numbers he cited. When the material was reinserted, it had only reliable third party sources such as the New Yorker, Nature, etc, and was clearly within BLP policy at that point. However it dealt with WMC, so you had to shut us up. You don't do the same for Solomon's article, nor any of the other skeptics. You state above that Minor4th was incivil, but take no action when shown diff of the repeated and continuing incivility of ChrisO. You haven't even addressed the fact of the reverts. Minor4th had 1 and ChrisO had 7+. It is a double standard and hypocritical, but it's OK as long as you silence the ones you don't agree with. GregJackPBoomer!16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was the original text:
"The highest disciplinary body in Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has no power to enforce its decisions, but depends on administrators to enforce them. An example is seen in the case of William Connolley, an admin on Wikipedia and a global warming proponent. Connolley used his administrator privileges to create or rewrite over 5,200 articles, removed over 500 articles, and blocked over 2,000 individuals who, according to the Financial Post, took positions that he disapproved of.[8][9] ... In this case, ArbCom imposed sanctions on Connolley, who promptly ignored them. "Many members of the community [of administrators]disagreed that these restrictions should have been placed on Connolley; as a result, the ArbCom decision was not enforced."<[5][6] "The administrators who should have been blocking him if he did that or whatever, said, 'I don’t want to block him.'[5][6] Faced with no way to enforce its decision, ArbCom reversed itself."
I had nothing to do with that material being in the article. My contributions to the article were minimal, but I was one of the original creators. Anyway, FPAS removed the bit about Connolley. I reworded it in a manner that was closer to the source and did not cite use of his admin tools in reference to the statistics it cited. The numbers were accurate at the time the article was published, and bit about actions being taken against Connolley's opponents was attributed solely to Solomon. Additional sources were added as well, but FPAS immediately reverted it (seemingly without reading it or checking the sources) and blocked me for 48 hours for "persistent BLP violations." My block was indef'd by another admin because I was trash talking, and I understand that but FPAS' block was a bad block in the first place and was over a content dispute that she was engaged in directly. Get it? One edit that improved sourcing and removed ambiguity about use of admin tools and attribution and I was blocked for persistent BLP violations. This was all within minutes of the article going live and hitting AfD if I remember correctly (which I may not, I admit). So to answer your question, FPAS, yes I do deny that my edit was a BLP violation and I especially deny that it was "persistent" BLP violation. The "warning" that was given was not really a warning as such and it was posted on my talk page at the same time I was making the edit -- and as I told FPAS, I had not even seen it until I made the edit and returned to my talk page to find that I was blocked. Now are you going to block me for disagreeing with you? Minor4th18:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only excuse in the above that has any merit is that Minor4th didn't see the warning before making the edit. Okay. The warning came 6 minutes before the edit. It was possible for him not to have seen it (if he had the edit window open for a long while), but of course I had no way f knowing that. To me the edit looked more like a reaction to spite the warning. You could have just said this when you found yourself blocked ("sorry, didn't see the warning in time, I won't reinsert this again") and I would have unblocked you. As for the rest: the warning was very clear and very explicit [25]. Minor4th's reworded version was not better than the previous one; it still had all the original BLP problems (admin-only diff): it still claimed that "more than 2,000 of Connolley's content opponents were blocked" (which in the context of this article was clearly an accusation of mass admin abuse, and that unhedged and clearly claimed as a straight fact). Greg's later version still had the same problems ("Connolley used his administrator privileges to [...] block individuals who, according to multiple sources, took positions that he disapproved of." – this was again a patent falsehood, because of the many refs that were then cited, only one, the Solomon rant, said anything at all about WMC blocking anybody.) It is thus also not true that Greg removed the Solomon source, as he claimed above. It was still there (admin-only diff). BTW, it was several hours after the article had gone live, three hours after a discussion on ANI was started [26], two hours after the AfD had been opened, and at least one and a half hours after Dougweller had first raised the issue of the BLP vio. Another thing, as for being involved, WP:BLP explicitly says that "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved." (BTW, on a side note, I'm male. It's strange. I wonder why it's only ever people I block that assume I'm a "she". It's happened a number of times.) Fut.Perf.☼20:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to provide cherry-picked diffs to support your position, I would like to get the entire article and talk page placed in my userspace for the sole and limited purpose of rebutting FPAS, to be deleted after this discussion is over. It's not fair otherwise. GregJackPBoomer!03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is the wiki that anyone can edit. You need to check the diffs, and make sure the person you are charging with a BLP violation was actually the person who did insert it. But maybe you're keener on tough sounding warnings and blocks than you are in working with editors to help them? At that point Minor4th's short history of edits supported a much softer approach, don't you think? Except this was WMC related material we're talking about. Not just any hapless victim, like Sharon Creech or thousands like her, but WMC... ++Lar: t/c20:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, at that point Minor4th had already racked up a substantial history of disruptive editing. But whatever. This last post of yours seals your case: you are not to be taken seriously, not as a good-faith colleague, not as a competent admin in this domain. From now on, I will just be treating you as yet another disruptive editor involved in this dispute. Fut.Perf.☼20:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done talking to you unless you retract that breathtakingly ABF insinuation about me being less than consistent in enforcing BLP. Minor4th didn't introduce that BLP violation, but he argued against its removal, I told him not to reintroduce it, he did so nevertheless. I would have blocked any editor on any article in such a situation, experienced or not doesn't matter. Show me one case of a "hapless victim" where I didn't, or apologize for this insult against my integrity as an administator. Fut.Perf.☼21:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not argue against the removal of the info, I sourced it better and changed the content and you told me not to reintroduce it and I didn't -- I changed it and it wasnt a violation of BLP and is sure as hell wasnt persistent. FPAS, you play favorites. Just listen to what is being said to you and make the adjustments that you need to make. Minor4th22:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I'd really like to know how in the world you came up with "at that point Minor4th had already racked up a substantial history of disruptive editing" because that is an all-out fabrication. I don't think I had ever even been warned prior to your block. Please justify this statement or retract it.Disruptive editing is indeed something you know a lot about, but in this case, you have it wrong. Are you sure you have not mistaken me for someone else? I was basically a brand newbie when you threw the bad block on me. Minor4th21:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way you pestered Sarah culminating in that RFC against her (according to the unanimous judgment of people who commented on the situation), and the absurd reaction of then creating the "admin abuse" article in retaliation, was disruption enough. That's all I could see of your editing at that time. Fut.Perf.☼21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you still haven't answered the question about ChrisO's conduct, both in incivility and 3RR violations. Why is Minor4th and I in your sights, but blatent violations such as his are not? The only reasonable conclusion is that you are biased. Please explain why you won't address this. GregJackPBoomer!04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I did not create that article, Greg did. And as I have said elsewhere, I did not want it to go to mainspace when it did, but that was not in my control. As he said it was ill-advised, and I thought so at the time and expressed that to him as well. I had a couple of minor edits on the thing, so you must not have been paying close attention when you made up your mind about me. Second of all, Sarah created the drama by making accusations and numerous bad faith assumption and then refusing to answer very polite questions about her accusations. She created the drama and she could have ended it, and the only reason I apologized to her is because I don't like things to remain unresolved, not because I thought it was all my fault because I certainly don't. Third of all, it was a bad block irrespective of whatever else you thought of me. Minor4th21:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and no one thought it would last...
hint — I miss having one of these bad boys.
It's that time of year again - 29 years and the party continues!
I'm thinking we should celebrate with a new toy that we can both ride ;) - Josette (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually tomorrow (we were married on 8-1-81 (US notation), how cute is that?) so you've got time. And I prefer "Frank and open exchange of views" to "quarrelling". I've sent you a note about that other matter. ++Lar: t/c20:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - remember seeing them in Marquette the year we were married? They're still touring, let's get another E and go find them!
Happy wedding anniversary
Dear Lar and Josette I wish you a happy wedding anniversary, and I wish the two of you to live a never ending honeymoon.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re this comment: Why do skeptic BLPs get stuffed and AGW alarmist BLPs get puffed? I'm familiar with the skeptic BLPs that are a subject of controversy, but not the others. Can you please name the "alarmist BLPs" to which you refer? Thanks, ScottyBerg (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you should be aware of our BLP policy. You should be aware that the policy applies even on user talk pages. Making accusations against living people, especially false accusations like this, are a clear violation of policy. Please remove your BLP violation. Guettarda (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're really going to go there ATren? The point is that Lar's claim is not only unsourced, it's actually false. I've already raised the problem of his falsehoods to Lar - I would have expected him to be especially careful so soon thereafter. If you don't know what alarmism is, have a look at climate change alarmism, and the references therein. Most of them are available online. As for Solomon and Delingpole - they are not reliable sources. Solomon's facts are demonstrably wrong, while Delingpole repeats Solomon's article, apparently without bothering to fact-check anything. Definitely not a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. You wanted to add a claim sourced to a Canadian Communist monthly to the lede of a skeptic BLP, and you have the nerve to call these mainstream sources unreliable. You are incapable of recognizing your own bias. 208.105.248.170 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing WMC as alarmist
It is not a BLP vio, WMC is described as an alarmist in a number of sources.[1][2][3][4][5] There are more out there, I just don't have time to look right now.
^Lindzen, Richard S. (November 29, 2008). Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?(pdf). Creativity and Creative Inspiration in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering: Developing a Vision for the Future. San Marino. pp. 1–36. Retrieved July 31, 2010.
^Costella, John (2009). Climategate Analysis. Haymarket, VA: Science and Public Policy Institute. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Solomon isn't a reliable source, since he has a poor record on reliability. Avery is just quoting Solomon, and doing so in a self-published post. Delingpole has also quoted Solomon, and did so without bothering to fact-check him, thus repeated his false claims. Lindzen's self-published article (which is laughably incorrect) does not support your claims. And Costella's article is also self-published and factually very dubious. None of these are BLP-appropriate sources. Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC's article is "getting puffed"? Either this colloquialism is beyond me or there is a different perception of reality at work. Care to list anything in there that is puffery? On the other hand, there is [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32],... It's interesting to observe how many IP addresses know Wikipedia templates, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- all of those you list are well over three years old, and almost ready to go to school <g>. I fail to see where Lar committed any BLP infractions here at all, unless you think that placing WMC in the "anti-septics" class is an infraction of some sort. Collect (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not talked about BLP infractions. I've objected to Lar's claim that WMC's bio is being "puffed", when I don't think there is any puff in there, while there have been plenty of attacks ("stuffings", according to Lar's terminology, if I understand it correctly). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone explain? Ich bin ein Alarmist
Um, could someone explain what Guettarda is talking about? WMC's bio (among others, I believe evidence was introduced in the case on this topic) is subject to puffery/sanitization by his factional buddies, is that really disputable? I'm an "alarmist" as is WMC. Is that really disputable? What exactly is the BLP violation being alleged? I think Guettarda gives the appearance of someone so blinded with dislike for me he's willing to make any baseless allegation handy. That may be an incorrect impression, but that's how it looks to me. ++Lar: t/c13:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what he meant is that "alarmist" will be understood by most as a highly negative qualifier, and as such potentially an attack – not on the wikipedians who did the puffing you allude to, but on the subjects of the articles in question. Probably just an unfortunate choice of wording and no need for drama, but you might want to avoid it in future. Fut.Perf.☼13:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an "alarmist", by that I mean that among those who accept that AGW is a real phenomenon, there is a spectrum of "prediction" about the impact/effect... some feel it will be mild or not very important, some feel that it will be major but that we can deal with it in due course and some feel that it is very very grave, and that if we do not take serious and significant action immediately to reduce our carbon output, and take other measures such as crash programs to research ways to reverse the effects and ameliorate them we are in for a very significant upset at best if not a major global catastrophe of a magnitude not seen in recorded history. I'm in that latter camp. So what term do you suggest I use? I'm amenable to a different one, but "alarmist" is what I've heard used. The different word or phrase needs to carry the right meaning and be short enough not to be unwieldy. As for drama, have a word with Guettarda. ++Lar: t/c13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite OK to self-identify as an "alarmist" (follow that link) with added qualifying definition and I agree that with said definition it's not a BLP problem. Trouble is, many (most?) seem to use the "alarmist" tag with a negative "the sky is falling" implication. That said, the label is a negative qualifier unless modified with a qualifying comment such as you've used above. That "Chicken Little" meaning is a BLP problem. To imply that climate scientists are futily advocating some doomsday "the sky is falling" scenario IS an attack. Almost all such catchy off-used terms have more than one implied meaning and should be avoided unless qualified. Vsmith (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None ... just say what you think. Those one-word thingys usually mean different things to different folks. You defined what it meant for you above - use that and avoid those one or two word phrases that mean something to others you don't intend. Vsmith (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, thanks for your response, which was something of a surprise as I didn't know that WMC had an article on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if you could identify the other BLPs of "alarmists," especially the ones that you feel are being puffed. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC's bio (among others, I believe evidence was introduced in the case on this topic) is subject to puffery/sanitization by his factional buddies, is that really disputable? - oh, it's neutral Lar grammar. "We maintain BLP, you puff, they sanitize." I also find it somewhat questionable to first make firm statements and later back them with "I believe". I believe that's hypocrisy and biased rhetoric. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we need to withhold judgment until Lar has provided a full list of the alarmist BLPs that have been puffed. He said he had to "run", though i see that he returned without identifying the other BLPs. I trust that we'll get a full list shortly. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Guettarda gives the appearance of someone so blinded with dislike for me he's willing to make any baseless allegation handy. That may be an incorrect impression, but that's how it looks to me. - Lar, seriously, these sorts of attacks are quite unbecoming. If anyone is "blinded with dislike", I think it's you, given your repeated attacks on me, usually without provocation, often is off-Wikipedia venues where I'm not even aware that you're attacking me. But that aside, Wikipedia policy does not allow you to make these sorts of unsourced attacks on living people. Stop seeing everything in terms of "factions" and try to follow policy. BLP doesn't only exist as a cudgel for you to attack other people - at applies, even to people you dislike.
I'm an "alarmist", by that I mean that among those who accept that AGW is a real phenomenon, there is a spectrum of "prediction" about the impact/effect - you are free to describe yourself however you please. But you are not free to use a term that has been mis-applied by partisans. "Alarmism" is not "belief that AGW is real..." It's like the term "baby killer", that's used to certain abortion opponents to describe everyone who does not adhere to their position. The fact that some extreme partisans use that terminology in a certain way, and some of them have used that term to describe Bart Stupak does not mean that it would be appropriate for you to use that label to describe Stupak, regardless of whether you embraced their rhetoric or not.
So what term do you suggest I use? - I don't know...call it the "mainstream" position like everyone else, call it the "scientific" position, whatever you choose. Just stop using inaccurate slurs. Seriously - when someone violates BLP, they don't get the right to say "well, tell me what language I should use". They are allowed to retract their offending statements, and they are allowed not to do it again. End of story. Guettarda (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mann's bio
Well, here's one: Michael E. Mann has very little discussion on the hockey stick controversy. Smaller controversies in skeptic BLPs have long sections of criticism sourced to non-scientists like Monbiot, but the hockey stick controversy has books published, and there's barely a mention of the controversy. Why is that? ATren (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a short article (only 641 words) in which the hockey stick controversy is already mentioned in the lead and has a paragraph devoted to it. Two more paragraphs of this brief article are devoted to other criticisms and controversies, namely "cliamtegate" and the Cuccinelli investigation. Do you think criticism and controversy should dominate the article? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who added that material, and who resisted its addition? Factions are operating in the area, plain and simple. One faction puffs one kind and stuffs the other, and the other faction puffs the other kind and stuffs the first kind. Tug of war. Proposed Decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c16:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who added that material, and who resisted its addition? Let's see - if you look at the relevant section of the article's talk page, Talk:Michael_E._Mann#Investigation_into_Mann_by_VA_Attorney_General, what do you see? User:Virnbaum adding material, and Stephan Schulz, dave souza, SPhilbrick, Jheiv, mark nutley and ChrisO arguing against the addition. Factions are operating in the area, plain and simple So what "factions" are you talking about? Seriously, you've taken the "factions" nonsense much too far - when mark nutley, Stephan Schulz and ChrisO constitute a faction... Yeah, there's a "Wikipedia" faction at play, and there's an apparent Scibaby sock "faction". You really need to stop making things up, stop pulling examples out of thin air because you think they will meet your preconceptions. Facts matter. Or they should, in an encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it seems that "factions" is becoming as misused as "cabal" used to be. This is a good example.
@Lar, still awaiting the names of the alarmist BLPs that are being puffed. No, two articles, both without puffery, do not substantiate your point. How many? As many as you wish, sir. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael E. Mann certainly, as well. ATren beat me to it. But I'd note that it's a common tactic to ask for people to repeat themselves, in more and more detail, while not accepting the detail previously given. I do not intend to supply an exhaustive list of BLPs that have been messed with. These two examples are, in my view, sufficient to evidence the problematic editing pattern. Now what are you guys going to do about Guettarda? ++Lar: t/c16:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you, for once, try to communicate effectively? I assume "you guys" is the other members of your "faction", i.e. GoRight, ATren, and Scibaby? And what do you want done about him? Why? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC) ;-) (added for the humour-impaired.) [reply]
Thanks for that. So then, adding a smiley is all that's needed to turn something beyond the pale into something completely innocuous? Is that a general principle applicable to everyone, or just to people in your faction? ++Lar: t/c19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My children use "Moo" for "Matter of Opinion" in a similar way. Any which way I am a bit stumped on condemning "faction" as battleground language cos I don't know who started it. But it should stop. --BozMotalk21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Around our house "Moo" (or more properly "MoO" means Master of Orion). Faction seems like the right term to describe the observed phenomenon. See WP:BATTLE, but if you have another term that refers to the same thing, but you find less ... stumping?... less whatever, please advise. As for StS, he's conceded he can't answer. Double standards and all that. ++Lar: t/c21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you like MOO? I preferred MOO2. MOM was pretty good too. If you like GOG is selling the first two for 6 bucks (I highly recommend their service). I think they have MOM too, but I'm not sure. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a Wikilink. If you, like Lar, do not know what it means, click it. Assuming either of you can read (as in, not just spell out the words, but read for understanding), he can explain to the other one what I am saying. Just a hint: Lar's comment is completely off the mark. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You guys" is SB, StS and SBHB in this case, as should have been clear. See that long and nasty attack from Guettarda near the top of this section? What are you going to do about it? Attack me some more? Your faction is the big problem. The other faction is the small problem. But you attack the neutral, uninvolved admins instead of dealing with your problems, as ArbCom members admonished you to do (remember Risker's statement at the start of the case?? Think she wasn't talking to you? Think again) I dodge nothing. You guys, on the other hand, do, all the time. Shameful. The Proposed Decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, members of both factions have dirty hands in this regard. My faction, the faction of people who just want to be good wikipedians and want everyone else to be too, is just tired of it all. The Proposed Decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c18:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SBHB:It's the classic Lar dodge-and-weave. Lar's response:See that long and nasty attack from Guettarda near the top of this section. Yep, that's an example of "the classic Lar dodge-and-weave". This is about your BLP violations here. Your willingness to utterly disregard policy when it serves your purposes. You have yet to remove your BLP violation. And that is the problem here. No matter how much you try to use this as an opportunity to attack people you hold a grudge against - it's still about your behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now what are you guys going to do about Guettarda - I would think, given your self-proclaimed dedication to BLP, that you think thank me Lar, for pointing out our mistake. Because, you know, BLP matters. Either you're so dug in that you'll never admit a mistake, no matter what, or you're willing to toss all regard for policy out the window in order to further your own personal agenda. Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar: You say I do not intend to supply an exhaustive list of BLPs that have been messed with. Why not? Shouldn't the puffery in those alarmist BLPs be addressed? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically. Not by me though, I'm not involved as an editor, or as an admin, and intend to stay that way. Nor do I intend to spend the time to generate such a list. I gave examples. ++Lar: t/c19:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said "more later," and I don't understand why A) You're not willing to keep that promise and B) Why naming alarmist BLPs that have been puffed would be such a burden on your time. In the amount of time that you've spent saying that you don't have the time to name the BLPs, you could have generated several names. Nor do I see what your being involved or uninvolved has to do with it. You made that remark in a public forum, and in my opinion you have an obligation to substantiate a serious allegation such as that. I say that because you are a senior administrator as well as a person who has held at least two (that I know of) positions of trust at the Foundation level. I think that you are bound by a higher degree of correct behavior than ordinary editors. My feeling is that if you make gratuitous comments in the midst of an Arbcom case without being prepared to back them up, they do not reflect well upon you.ScottyBerg (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I gave examples" - well, yes, wrong ones. Either substantiate them, or amend them, or retract. As an example, show any "puffery" in WMC's bio. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan, the puffery in WMC's bio is that it exists. He isn't notable without the secondary sources discussing his WP involvement, though his bio predates some of those. And a lot of them are being excluded by his friends. I agree with the exclusion of one of those articles (the Solomon article where he made the mistake about William's admin actions), but the rest are reliable sources. So we either need to include them, or decide for reasons of BLP or notability to delete the article, as we have with other Wikipedians notable only for their activities here. I hope this is something else that can be sorted out once the CC case is over. SlimVirgintalk|contribs19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been around for seven years. If there is going to be an accusation of puffery concerning this article, it needs to be more than "it exists." ScottyBerg (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous academics of actual accomplishment without biographies. WMC is only notable due to his activities on wikipedia and the blogosphere. The amusing thing is that I imagine his friends will be the ones campaigning to delete the article within a few years. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not only is that comment a BLP violation, the argument is also without any merit. There are a lot of topics not adequately covered on Wikipedia. The solution for that is, of course, to improve the other articles, not to whine about how Pokemon is covered better than Nietzsche. And I assume you know who created WMC's bio? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, it would be a BLP violation to the hundreds of other more accomplished academics who lack biographies or have smaller ones to put them in the same category. Honestly, there are tens of thousands of people with advanced degrees, who are still in academia, and who've published significantly more papers and work of real significance. And honestly, I could care less who started his article, or who started yours (editors of yours though include Hipocrite, 2over0, Bozmo, and KDP - a coincidence I'm sure), but you have to admit being a wikipedian dramatically increases the likelihood of a person getting an article. Hell, your "e theorem prover" has an article despite other provers with far more awards and recognition having no article at all and even the "best" prover with an article is one-third the size of yours. I'm sure it all has absolutely nothing to do with you being a wikipedian right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the article was first VfD'd and kept, it looked like this. I'm not really sure how accurate that statement is, SlimVirgin. NW(Talk)21:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NW, I don't know which statement you're referring to. When I last looked at the article there were no secondary sources about WMC, except those about his WP editing, and most of those were being kept out by his friends. We can't base articles on primary sources, especially not BLPs, and there hasn't been a serious AfD discussion about this article since our sense of what BLPs required developed, including the importance of basing them on secondary sources. Bottom line is that it must reflect the secondary material that's out there, or if that would constitute a BLP violation, we must delete it. But we're currently hosting a puff piece. SlimVirgintalk|contribs21:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not nominate it for deletion? There's an excellent chance you'll get my vote. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool deletionist. But I don't care for the way this discussion has degenerated into a flog-WMC fest. It doesn't seem right. I thought that I would get a list of alarmist BLPs that were puffed. Instead there has been a pile-on, with an unpopular editor getting whacked. I don't like it. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait for the ArbCom case to close, then have a discussion about whether to write it up properly or delete it. I'm not here whacking anyone, Scotty. The fact is that the bio would not have survived had WMC not had friends protecting it, so there has been an absence of appropriate whacking too, as it were. :) I started trying to fix it in January and got beaten back, with Stephan arguing that The American Spectator wasn't a reliable source. [33] Then I forgot about it. Then in May I got into an argument with WMC and remembered it for that reason, but given I'd argued with him it would have been wrong for me to start editing his bio. So it's been in the back of my mind for some time that it needs to be sorted. SlimVirgintalk|contribs22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I would probably vote delete as well. Despite the fact that WMC, with a Google Scholar h-index of 21, might meet WP:ACADEMIC #1, you are correct in that there are really no reliable or accurate secondary sources to build a proper biography. I was mostly respond to Thegoodlocust's comments where he says WMC is only notable for his actions on Wikipedia and in the blogosphere. I had thought he was referring to Solomon's articles (and others?) about WMC's admin actions and desysopping as well as RealClimate. However, as long as subject notability guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC (or far worse: WP:ATHLETE and WP:PORNBIO) continue to exist, I think a subsequent AFD nomination will go down exactly like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Connolley (3rd nomination), as nothing new has changed since then. (Speaking of which, in that AFD, I would hardly count all of those voting Keep as WMC's friends; I see quite a few uninvolved editors and only two arguing to delete). NW(Talk)22:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What has changed since then is our sense of when it's not appropriate for us to host a BLP. That third AfD was in September 2006, when the BLP policy was still at an early stage. Hopefully once the ArbCom case is over, people will be more thoughtful. The fact is that he's not notable by WP's standards, unless you count the secondary coverage triggered by his WP editing. When those situations have arisen in the past, we have deleted (where the stories were mostly negative) except for Essjay where the coverage become so extensive that deletion was hard to justify. SlimVirgintalk|contribs22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are far too optimistic, to be honest. I would say that he is notable by Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically by WP:ACADEMIC. Now, there is also the matter of WP:ACADEMIC being a ridiculous guideline, but that's another issue and one that will hopefully be resolved one day. If you do end up opening an AFD, please give me a heads up. It will be interesting to watch the discussion. NW(Talk)22:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's never been an academic that I'm aware of. He works on something to do with bluetooth, which the article doesn't mention, and worked for a short time as a climate modeller for the British Antarctic Survey. We link to that in the infobox as though he still works there. He was briefly a parish councillor. The page was created by Ed Poor, who I assume was in a dispute with him, in the days before doing that got you banned. There are no secondary sources at all attesting to notability, if you exclude the Wikipedia-related ones. I have no problem hosting a bio based on WP editing if the subject doesn't mind, if there are sources (I argued in favour of keeping David Shankbone, for example), but in this case the subject does mind, and his friends won't allow the material to be added. Given that backdrop, it's in everyone's interests for it to go, including WMC's. SlimVirgintalk|contribs22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of discussion that I dislike about BLPs, because it seems unfair to be going into this level of detail about how notable someone is. But briefly, that list doesn't show that many, and even if you see him as a former academic, he doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Plus, we need secondary sources who've discussed his work so that we can show that other reliable sources see him as notable, not Wikipedians. You're one of the editors preventing secondary sources from being used, so you're part of the problem here, I'm afraid. SlimVirgintalk|contribs23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has an h-index of 21, which is fairly high. I believe people with less than that have still been determined to meet WP:ACADEMIC #1, as the "most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work: either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Dr. Connolley meets that, I believe. NW(Talk)02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to calculate that, or what the significance is for WP's policies, or how we would know it was connected to him and not fellow authors. The key to notability is not what we've done, but who has written about what we've done. So the only thing that matters here is whether there are secondary sources. SlimVirgintalk|contribs02:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This addon will do it for you. And I totally agree with you about secondary sources being more important than subject notability guidelines ([34]), but others at AFD probably will not. NW(Talk)02:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at it, I compared WMC and Fred Singer, one of the CC skeptics. One of the arguments people were using about Singer was he wasn't that notable as an academic, so I was wondering how the figures compare. Not trying to make a point here, just curious. SlimVirgintalk|contribs03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Singer (not sure if it makes a difference how this is written)
Impact indices:
(Plain values)
Citations in this page: 1786.0 h-indexClick to see what's this.: 19.0 g-indexClick to see what's this.: 38.0 e-indexClick to see what's this.: 29.0 delta-hdelta-h: the number of citations needed to increment h-index by 1: 1.0 delta-gdelta-g: the number of citations needed to increment g-index by 1: 10.0
(Normalized The citations of each paper are divided by the corresponding number of authors (authors >4 are rounded to 4) per co-authorship)
Citations in this page: 901.4 h-indexClick to see what's this.: 8.0 g-indexClick to see what's this.: 22.0 e-indexClick to see what's this.: 14.0 delta-hdelta-h: the number of citations needed to increment h-index by 1: 0.3 delta-gdelta-g: the number of citations needed to increment g-index by 1: 16.7
William M Connolley
Impact indices:
(Plain values)
Citations in this page: 672.0 h-indexClick to see what's this.: 12.0 g-indexClick to see what's this.: 25.0 e-indexClick to see what's this.: 21.0 delta-hdelta-h: the number of citations needed to increment h-index by 1: 1.0 delta-gdelta-g: the number of citations needed to increment g-index by 1: 4.0
(Normalized The citations of each paper are divided by the corresponding number of authors (authors >4 are rounded to 4) per co-authorship)
Citations in this page: 208.9 h-indexClick to see what's this.: 7.0 g-indexClick to see what's this.: 13.0 e-indexClick to see what's this.: 9.0 delta-hdelta-h: the number of citations needed to increment h-index by 1: 2.8 delta-gdelta-g: the number of citations needed to increment g-index by 1: 10.5
"One of the arguments people were using about Singer was he wasn't that notable as an academic" - did they? I suspect you misread or misremember. The claim I remember (and I admit I'm too busy/lazy to dig through the archives) is that he wasn't notable primarily for his academic work, but more for his work with SEPP and his contrariness. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More on number of examples
The original purpose of my coming here, at Lar's invitation, was for Lar to substantiate/explain/discuss his comment about alarmist BLPs being puffed. I wasn't expecting Lar to change his mind, and for the discussion to degenerate into yet more purposeless CC chitchat, targeting the much-flayed WMC. If Lar is not willing to put some meat on the bones of what seems a rather gratuitous comment, I'm not seeing much point to this. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two examples of such have been given. How many more would suffice? (second time I asked) Also, part of my reason in declining in engaging in any further discussion with you on Hipocrite's page is that comments on this page are not subject to arbitrary deletion merely because I disagree with them. Hipocrite is entirely within policy to delete a comment out of the middle of a thread, destroying context, but I prefer not to do that. ++Lar: t/c21:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you gave one example, said you had to run, and then endorsed a name given by someone else. What I was asking you to do is to identify the alarmist BLPs that have been puffed. If it is just Mann and WMC, so be it. But you say there are others, that that's just a sample, so I'd like to know who they are. I'd like to know if your statement is correct, and I can't without knowing which ones you're referring to. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mann was going to be my second example, but ATren beat me to it. I'm not going to provide an exhaustive list because I don't have one, I haven't combed through all of them, and I don't intend to. How many more examples would suffice to satisfy you the point's been made? ++Lar: t/c21:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would satisfy me is knowing that you've identified all the BLPs of alarmists that you feel have puffery. If all you had in mind were those two when you made that comment, then there's nothing more to discuss. But evidently there were more. Am I incorrect? And if there are, which BLPs are they? I don't think this is a tall order. I'm just trying to figure out what you meant.ScottyBerg (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with it except when you compare it to a skeptic BLP like Solomon or Monckton, which are filled with coatracks and non-notable criticism. NW, tell me, do you think it's appropriate that these editors are trying to force isolated claims and criticisms from Canadian Socialist monthly magazines (Canadian Dimension in Lawrence Solomon) and partisan commentators (Monbiot and self-published presentations in Chris Monckton) while the author of a famously controversial theory gets almost nothing on the controversy? It's blatantly one-sided that published books have been squelched on one side while obscure magazines are forced into the other. These editors were pushing Canadian Dimension as a source for Solomon's lede sentence. Do you really not see the inequity here? Come on. Honestly, I'd rather all the BLPs look like Mann's, but I've been fighting POV pushers for 3 years on that, and it ain't happening, so if they're so insistent on adding such non-notable criticism on one side then we might as well push the same into the other. At least it would be consistent, and not blatantly one-sided. ATren (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Challenges from Guettarda
I'm not involved as an editor, or as an admin, and intend to stay that way - seriously Lar, that's Wikilawyering to an extreme. We don't have separate classes of editors who are "uninvolved" in a topic by virtue of the fact that they don't edit article-space pages on that topic. "Involved" editors have strong feelings about content. You have expressed far stronger opinions, you have engaged in attacks on editors, you have been subject to an RFC in which a plurality of editors (many truly uninvolved) found that argument held no water. You went to far as to refuse to fix problems in Delingpole's bio in order to retain your "uninvolved" status, but attacked other editors (who were mostly unaware of the problem) for not carrying out the edits you wanted done. That's not "uninvolved". In fact, you went so far as to do nothing to fix a problem in a BLP that you were aware of, simply to maintain this fig leaf of "uninvolvedness". You've edited talk pages. You've lobbied hard for content changes. You have been an active participant in an arbcomm case. And, quite frankly, from the first time I encountered you this year, when I was expressing an opinion on your out-of-process BLP deletions, how did you respond? By attacking me on ID and "AGW". You showed up at this issue spoiling for a fight. You imported your pre-existing dislikes for me and others. Yeah, you're involved. You've been involved from the start. Because you only got involved in order your agenda against certain editors. Guettarda (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, until you brought that up, I had forgotten your involvement in the whole Moulton mess...I actually had to dig into the past to figure out why you lashed out like that. But that, apparently, was your first response to me. It says a lot about holding grudges and importing conflicts. Guettarda (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, you appear to be trying to provoke an emotional response here. That's not very helpful. I can list some more BLPs that apply here, as there are plenty that show the double standard involved. For example, didn't you add a blog as a source of negative information to the Edward Wegman article? case rested. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three years ago Cla? Seriously? I think that proves my point about people who hold grudges. Anyway, people who use blog comments as sources really have no credibility here. Guettarda (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a diff where I used a blog comment in a BLP, Guettarda? Anyway, why did you feel it was necessary or appropriate to use a blog to add criticism to that BLP? Cla68 (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were not the same BLP rules 3 years ago and realclimate as a group blog written by notable scientists was probably considered to be a fine source for a BLP back then so this sort of comment takes us absolutely nowhere. In fact even today it is more than a little ironic that newspapers with a strong editorial bias are considered to be a better source than a blog like realclimate but for better or worse that is what we have to deal with, it does not make it right but that is what the current rules are and equally we cannot apply the current rules to 3 years ago either. Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a diff where I used a blog comment in a BLP, Guettarda? - Did I say you used it in a BLP? Nope, and I really don't find you interesting enough do dig up your past misdeeds. Sorry. But you did try to use a blog comment to attribute an opinion to a living person, and you did try to use it in a Wikipedia article. And anyone who can't figure out that a blog comment can't be used to source anything, at this stage of the game, really just doesn't get it. Guettarda (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, you knew, or should have known, that it was wrong in 2007 to use a blog to add negative information to a BLP. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth mentioning that Arbcom has previously ruled that BLP is retrospectively applicable on an ex post facto basis, i.e. edits made in the pre-BLP era that were considered legitimate then can be sanctioned retrospectively years later under the currently applied BLP rules. It's insane but there you have it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More on Solomon
Solomon isn't a reliable source, since he has a poor record on reliability.
And the "science" of "climate change" record on reliability is? Yet AGW advocates for this (cough) "science" to throw our political, cultural, social and economic sytem into the dumpster to "save the planet". Good luck with that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're barking up the wrong tree, at least with me. AGW is real, and it's a serious issue. Very serious. That's not the point. It's not whether the <mumble> faction is right about the science. They are. It's about the process subversion to maintain the POV everywhere else. Most of AGW/CC isn't science. Slanting BLPs just isn't appropriate, even those of people who happen to be wrong about AGW. ++Lar: t/c20:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, Please Respond
Guettarda, why did you think it was appropriate to use a passing reference in an obscure Canadian Socialist monthly to label Lawrence Solomon something which Solomon himself considered pejorative? Why did you argue repeatedly to include that label in Solomon's opening sentence? It's pure hypocrisy, and typical of the way this faction operates. ATren (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would be helpful if you could actually link to Guettarda's pestering to include this source so we can all see how serious it was. Polargeo (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ATren. That is rather unimpressive. Your characterisation of the argument here is more than a little bit one sided and if it is the best you can do to distract from more useful arguments then it is really not worth it. Polargeo (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ATren, I gave your misrepresentations as much space as they deserved when we discussed them previously. I did not "argue repeatedly to include that label in Solomon's opening sentence?". That's simply a dishonest characterisation of the discussion, and you're well aware of that. When you're ready to stop making shit up, maybe we can talk. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, are you guys not expecting other people to look into it and read what really happened? Is Atren 100% correct is what he has said? No, he's made some minor mistakes, I suspect confusing similar personalities for other such personalities - memory is an imperfect thing, but the gist of what he has said is correct.
Guettarda you have said:
Atren: "I have not seen one source which disputes the environmentalist label" - this is rather tiresome nonsense. Here you explain your rejection of one such source because it is "liberal". It's rather hard to claim you have not seen a source just days after you reverted it out of the article because you disagreed with its POV. Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And also:
Atren: "that revert was to the "free-market" label, not the "environmentalist" label" - nope, you reverted from free market environmentalist to environmentalist. These are very different things. So either you're misrepresenting the situation now, or you simply reverted without bothering to educate yourself about the topic. So what is it - are you misrepresenting your edit, or was it simply tendentious editing? Guettarda (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
In the first post you are arguing that Atren has seen sources that dispute that Solomon is an environmentalist because Canadian Dimension has called him a "free market environmentalist." To argue that the latter isn't an environmentalist is an extremely tendentious argument - to ignore the source of the claim is incompetent. The second post continues with tendentious wikilawyering.
For reference, here is the original dispute where Hipocrite and WMC are arguing to include "free market" on the environmentalist label, when, if the situations were reversed, and Reason magazine was calling James Hansen as "communist environmentalist" then we can be sure they'd be arguing not to call him that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Surprise surprise, Guettarda responds with evasive wikilawyering. He really wasn't technically arguing for inclusion, just arguing against non-inclusion -- that's one of the favored tactics of the climate change faction. And that's not even an assumption of bad faith -- I really believe Guettarda is so blinded by his POV that he believes this argument holds water. But whatever, I'm done here, my point is made. ATren (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP compare and contrast
Selecting GW/CC BLP's at random, compare the quality and tone in the "alarmist" BLP's compared to the "skeptic" BLP's"
1. Ben Santer: No sources cited for the "Chapter 8 controversy" and reference to Science & Environmental Policy Project remvoed by WMC. No mention of the fact that Santer's chapter in IPCC2 was largely sourced by his own non-peer-reviewed papers. No mention of his email saying he'd like to beat the crap out of Pat Michaels -- although editors tried to include this info, but ChrisO and WMC and KDP reverted time and again calling the info "trivia" and UNDUE. KDP removed a reference from International Journal of Climatology claiming it was not a reliable source and also citing UNDUE. A link to the EA emails was removed by WMC calling it "junk" and removed again by KDP. The overall tone is very positive and supportive of this BLP.
2. Pat Michaels -- calls him a skeptic even though he says he's not, creating implication that he's stupid or dishonest. The section on "Criticism and support" starts with criticism and goes on for two or three paragraphs about Michaels misrepresentations according to his opponents -- cited to self published paper by an opponent. The only "support" is a book review. A separate section exists to make it appear Michaels is biased because of his funding. The section on his views is mostly about whether he should be called a skeptic or not and very little on his views or accomplishments. Info inserted by WMC implying he lost his job or left under questionable circumstances. WMC attempts to include negative opinions sourced to op-eds until it was taken to BLP noticeboard by AQFK. The overall tone is negative, downplaying or omitting accomplishments and notable views while loading the article with controversial info with some poor sourcing violative of BLP policy.
KDP removed a reference from International Journal of Climatology claiming it was not a reliable source and also citing UNDUE. - assuming you refer to this edit, you are wrong. The reference to the J. Climatology was to Santer's own paper and only for identification purposes. The claim of the sentence was sourced to http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4314, not a reliable source, and in particular not a RS for a BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the people who are sourced as having criticized Michaels aren't criticized in their own articles for far more famous things. Tom Wigley for instance is rather infamous due to some of the climategate emails (e.g. second large paragraph and lower (attempts to get people fired from journals - they succeeded at times too). TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot source "infamy" to a primary source. Moreover, ensuring competent peer-review and editing is indeed part of a scientists job. Finally, I assume you know that "fired" is at last misleading, as editorial positions at journals are not usually paid jobs, but filled by unpaid volunteers as part of their academic work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the word "infamy" should be in Wigley's article, but his comments in the climategate emails have been widely distributed. You are also nitpicking on the word "fired" - WMC's friends got people "removed" from journal positions because they didn't like what they were publishing. Hell, it was disgusting what he said in that email (e.g. "doesn't matter if it is true").
Oh and back on topic why is this section even in Michael's article?:
Intermountain Rural Electric Association
On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.[22] The report noted that the cooperative has a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.[23]
I don't see any sections in AGW advocate articles about the millions they and their universities received from energy/oil companies. It is POV advocacy at its worst with its implicatioin that he isn't to be taken seriously because he got a grant from some energy company - ALL these people get funding from them on both side of the issue. TheGoodLocust (talk)
I suspect it's in the article because it was covered in detail by the Associated Press and ABC News. It doesn't seem necessary to invoke the standard rhetoric about AGW activism to explain that - it actually seems like an example of how BLPs are supposed to be sourced and written. Are there dedicated pieces from similar reputable, non-partisan news outlets supporting the material you want to see included on Wikipedia about "AGW advocates"? MastCellTalk17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite simply bullshit. I've seen "ExxonSecrets" used to try and link skeptics to oil/coal companies in wikipedia. This is a common tactic - discredit the enemy. It is undue and you know it. Hell, every single criticism in Michael's article comes from someone related to the climategate emails - Holdren (yep he was in there too), Wigley, and the "ABC" news section quotes Trenberth too. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah. I'm not talking about ExxonSecrets, so let's not change the subject. You questioned a specific section of Michaels' biography, asserting that it was "POV advocacy at its worst". That section contains 2 sources: the AP and ABC News, both of which seem to support the article's text. I don't see ExxonSecrets cited there. Can you address my actual point? MastCellTalk18:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And both of those articles were written by well-known global warming boosters. Hell, you can ever look up Seth Borenstein in the climategate emails! The company behind Real Climate, IRRC, is focused on connecting their guys to media outlets. Sorry, but if you want a section on something that EVERY scientist has, then get a good source and multiple sources - not from environmental advocates who happen to work as journalists. Anyway, the point about Exxonsecrets, which I have seen KDP argue to include, is that it is the criticism that comes first - the sourcing in second and it is very important to you guys to link skeptics to fossil fuel companies to try and discredit them. It is sickening. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your point is that the AP and ABC News are not appropriate sources for Michaels' biography? And the basis for your objection is that you believe the pieces to be written by "well-known global warming boosters"? I want to be clear on how you view BLP sourcing. MastCellTalk18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is was really notable that Michaels received funding from an energy company, just like every scientist does in one way or another, then it would be covered by far more sources. Use some common sense. The only reason to include that fact, a fact NOT included in other scientists biographies, is to try and discredit him through implication/association. Honestly, go and leave wikipedia if you can't admit that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address my question. I'm getting a little dizzy, but I'll go with it. So you believe that news items from the AP and ABC News are BLP-appropriate, but >2 independent, reliable sources are necessary to warrant addressing the issue? Can you accept that to some people - people who believe in BLP - the fact that it's been addressed by multiple independent, reliable, non-partisan sources means that it is reasonable to include in a biography? You don't have to agree, but do you at least understand how someone could reach that point of view in good faith, and in consonance with WP:BLP rather than simply from nefarious intentions? MastCellTalk19:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, use some common sense, you can call that WP:IAR if you like, and continuing to describe those two journalists as "non-partisan" is ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous when compared to the articles of people like Michael Mann where relevant criticism is excluded and criticism of criticism is always included. Tell me, how is his funding important? Why is his funding important but not Mann's? Besides, this is a running theme[35] - you guys are always trying to link skeptics to fossil fuel guys, at least in Lindzen's case he finally responded and showed how dishonest/incorrect the criticism was. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear on why you think the AP and ABC News should be discounted, other than your personal belief that the pieces are written by "global warming boosters". You keep changing the subject - you raised a specific example in Patrick Michaels, and I still don't understand your concern. Michaels' funding is relevant because multiple independent, reliable sources have considered it relevant enough to address. That's the usual bar for relevancy on Wikipedia. Do you have a problem with that? MastCellTalk19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated my peace and shown the pattern of trying to discredit skeptics using this specific tactic. You are either unable or unwilling to understand me or I an unable to communicate my concerns properly - I'm certainly unwilling to continue this dance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This section is focused on BLP abuse, but the example you listed doesn't seem to be abusive. I'm trying to understand why you think it is. In any case, OK. MastCellTalk19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Santer is an example of Lar's concern about "alarmist BLPs being puffed," this is a poor example. First Santer is a respected scientist. I can't see him (or Mann or Connelley) correctly referred to as a wild-eyed "alarmist." There is no puffery in the article, and an over-substantial portion of it is devoted to a controversy. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but most of the pro-AGW scientists aren't mentioned for their most famous things. Look up Trenberth's article and yo uwont' find a reference to his famous climategate statement that it was a "travesty" that they couldn't explain the lack of warming at the moment. Look up Wigley and any other climategate scientist of note and you will rarely find a mention of such well-circulated statements. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing are bios that are incomplete or poorly written, not ones that are subjected to puffery, however. If Trenbeth's statement was included, that would not reflect poorly upon him. It would make him look good. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Puffery" via excluding inconvenient criticisms. And you think that's make Trenberth look great? How these guys publicly promote one view while privately saying they don't understand what is going on? Really? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll point you to an earlier version of Michael Mann's article (seems to be going through major changes from people reading this talk page). In particular, the last two paragraphs were:
In November 2009, some of Mann's correspondence with fellow climate researchers was among the hacked e-mails at the centre of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[5] Mann rejected allegations of wrongdoing, commenting that the e-mails had been "misrepresented, cherry-picked ... [and] completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said". [6] Two reviews by Pennsylvania State University in 2010 cleared Mann of any research misconduct, stating that "there is no substance" to the allegations against him [7][2]; Mann welcomed these findings [8][9].
And:
In May 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the University of Virginia seeking a broad range of documents relating to Mann's work there as a researcher between 2001-2005, alleging that the hacked e-mails indicated that fraud may have been committed.[10] The allegation was rejected by Mann and was strongly criticised by scientific and civil liberties organizations and hundreds of individual scientists as unfounded, entirely unwarranted and an attack on academic freedom.[11] The University filed suit to overturn the demand, citing protection under the First Amendment and stating that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to demand the documents.[12]
In the first paragraph, you'll notice that the investigations that "cleared" Mann were not criticized - despite widespread criticisms of those internal investigations by skeptical climate scientists like Lindzen.
In contrast, the 2nd paragraph manages to find criticism for Mann's opponent, Cucinelli, but doesn't submit Cucinelli's responses to those criticisms. It is all rather one-sided and always in Mann's favor. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I thought I read somewhere that it would be better to have examples from more fleshed out biographies which is why I was using Mann as an example. If you want an actual diff of what I'm talking about being removed from Trenberth then I found this one pretty quickly. It was the first diff I clicked on in the history (good instincts I guess) and so I can't really attest to the sourcing, but at first glance it covers the gist of the situation. I don't expect the content ChrisO removed to be perfect, but it should have a mention since it is what Trenberth is famous for. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that most scientists (at least, those deserving of Wikipedia articles) aren't – or shouldn't be – 'most famous' for a single off-the-cuff remark made in a private email. The fact that some people believe that these casual statements not intended for public consumption are the most important features of their lives and careers is...concerning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reality seldom cares what "should be." The statements I've mentioned were highly circulated in a wide variety of publications. I've seen many articles, even of little known politicians, that at least mention their famous but embarrasing statements because they are notable due to their rate of circulation (not just 2 sources from 2 environmental activists). TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, it was disgusting what he said in that email (e.g. "doesn't matter if it is true"). - for someone who claims to be able to read you are surprisingly bad at it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charming fragrance Stephan - perhaps a waft of Eau de Connolley has rubbed off on you? Regardless, interpretations may vary and I foolishly thought I didn't have to quote the entire phrase without being subject to legalistic parsing and personal attacks. But, since you insist, here you go:
"One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about - it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts." -Tom Wigley, in part of the climategate emails dealing with how they can get rid of Von Storch. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The disgusting part is that Wigley doesn't care if there is that perception - just if he and his friends can convince the publisher that there is and get Von Storch removed. Hell, they DID get people removed from their positions with their coordinated behind the scenes crap (along with preventing others from getting published, etc, etc). Honestly Stephan, just stick with good talking points like throwing out the baloney "97% of climatologists..." crap. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here you are, not reading the text but your own mistaken preconceptions. You quote it yourself: "...and point out the fact that their journal is perceived...". Wigley clearly states that this perception is there. He just (correctly or not) points out that the publisher cares about this perception, not about reality. Now that that is out of the way, who do you think "they" got removed? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a word for my "mistaken preconceptions" and it is called context. And since wikipedia is the place for reliable sources then I'd like to present an opinion piece from the WSJ, even though I doubt the cogent points will be quoted in the relevant articles:
-Mr. Mann was one of the Climategate principals who proposed a plan, which was clearly laid out in emails whose veracity Mr. Mann has not challenged, to destroy a scientific journal that dared to publish three papers with which he and his East Anglia friends disagreed.
-But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
-Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.
Of course, Mr. Russell didn't look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That's because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.
I notice that you avoid answering the question, but instead quote an opinion piece by Pat Michaels, which, as as such, is at best good for Pat Michaels opinion. But I notice that even in Michael's opinion, the researchers did the bad bad thing of not submitting their articles to a substandard venue. I assume you are aware of the difference between opinion pieces and research article? Research articles are vetted by editors and peer reviewers, and if they don't measure up, they are rejected. I've had a couple of "perfectly good manuscripts" rejected (although from conferences, which is where computer scientists primarily publish), and I've had to reject perfectly good manuscripts from journal issues I edited for no other reason than lack of space and competition. No conspiracy at work here... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I didn't answer one of your questions, which I suppose is the point of playing bait and switch - shift around until your opponent gets tired and doesn't want to play anymore or find a fallacy that sticks. Specifically, I'm assuming the question you are saying I'm not answering is *who* they got canned? Yes, well I've said as much as I will on the subject, and it isn't terribly hard to find specific names, but I'm certainly not going to reveal my private communications to the likes of you and watch them get smeared on another blacklist (e.g. exxonsecrets, desmogblog). It is obvious from my previous statements (and my rare uploads) that I communicate with various scientists privately, usually esoteric ones, but sometimes I'll email the better known ones.
The fact of the matter is that, in this case, we have the motive, the statement of intent, the smoking gun, and the body - but a curious refusal to even imply guilt. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I give wide latitude (as wide as our overall rules allow) to discussion here, in general. That includes people making unfounded allegations against me. But that latitude does not extend to visitors here making unfounded attacks on others. Suggesting that someone cannot read, as Stephen Schulz did here and here, is not acceptable. Please see that it doesn't happen again. Confine your unfounded attacks and character assassination to me alone, please. ++Lar: t/c11:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
