User talk:ATren

archive historical revision - rather than explicitly creating an archive page (which needlessly copies data), this neatly links to the last revision before removing archived sections. It also serves as a handy marker to the exact point where archival occurred in the history. archive, 1/25/2009

I am detaching from all activity on the global warming pages. The long term pro-AGW POV pushers and their admin enablers can have their way. After all, some POVs are more important than the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thanks for the good advice, UnitAnode. :-) ATren (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be amused to see something that looks like censorship. As if the whole world didn't know there's a scandal involved in glacial retreat estimates such as those in Retreat of glaciers since 1850.

But I decided to collect views on improving the entire suite of GW articles. I have a concern that there are many ways to make improvements to these articles but only one way to keep them the same. This results in a) division of effort and b) large numbers of editors abandoning the effort.

Some active editors are prepared to show their support or opposition to movement in specific directions, at a chart on my TalkPage here. If you would like to encourage this effort then please consider adding your name to the parts you think most important. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea. I may chime in this weekend. ATren (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am detaching from all activity on the global warming pages

Really? The evidence is against you. Anyway, I came here to say: you and I clearly have rather different ideas of politeness and civility; your very recent contributions speak for you. Should you have cause for a rethink, you are welcome back. Should you not, please don't darken my talkpage again William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I only came back to respond to your charges that I not only hold vendettas, but I also "accuse you of much the same", both of which are completely unfounded. My problem with you is your biting, condescending attitude, which is on display whenever you engage someone who disagrees with you. You've been doing that for years, it's flared up more in the past week or so, and it's disruptive. My problem has nothing to do with vengeance; its your disruption on a very contentious topic that I object to.

Why don't you look at those reports on the probation noticeboard and think about it for a minute: I didn't file a single report against you, yet you had at least 3 filed. Do they all hold vendettas too? How about all those who commented on those reports? UnitAnode, MarkNutley, GoRight, ZP5, TGL, CoM, AlexHarvey, Lar have all chimed in on your latest incivility thread. Are they all wrong and you're right? Oh wait, they're probably all "septic" so not worthy of consideration, so how about Scjessey, Hipocrite, ChrisO, TS, 2/0? Even as those editors defended you on that probation page, they all included some concession to the incivility charge. Yet you continue to claim complete innocence.

Really, WMC, who has cause to rethink?

As for "darkening your talk page", I will respect that request up to a point -- if you accuse me of something like vengeance again, I still reserve the right to ping your talkpage for explanation (which, by the way, I still have not received, other than a claim that I'm a fool not to notice it myself). ATren (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. He never listens. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to look at what ZP5 is worth, then look at his contribs. Ditto TGL; and the others. The answer will soon be very obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean? But you knew that anyway. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC, we all know what you think of the so-called skeptics, but what about the others? Does your lack of worthiness judgement extend to Scjessey, Hipocrite, ChrisO, TS, and 2/0, all of whom expressed at least some level of disagreement with your incivility? ATren (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Those you've just listed are sensible people. Are you interested in discussing their opinions, or do you just wish to cherry-pick quotes from them? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, how do you respond to their concerns about your civility? ATren (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work on improving the graph

On the 2over0 talk page ... Although the whole section [1]seems like it belongs somewhere else better. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like the way the graph turned out; I may turn it into an essay at some point, or at least post it on my user page. In reality, I was probably a little hard on 2/0 - I don't think he intends to be uneven, sometimes it just turns out that way - but the overall principle still applies and if it wasn't 2/0 it'd be someone else. ATren (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK ... well for your stats and evidence work ... I suggest you look at these principles Receiver_operating_characteristic to gage enforcement actions and outcomes. You might find some intresting results for signal to noise and effectiveness. These are virtualy invalid for GW because of truth issues. When applying ROC binary claisifers, the issue isn't linear or Cartesian relationships as much as being able to effectively rank the data in an index with a meaningful threshold. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good call :)

It`ll drive us nuts in the end :) will you be giving up on this [2] as well? And is it possible to get feedback from you on this [3] once in a while? Cheers man. --mark nutley (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I've not been successful in detaching entirely. ;-) I will probably work on the evidence here and there, though I just got really busy IRL so it will be sporadic. As for your new article, I won't get involved much there (I've taken ALL GW articles off my watchlist). I've dipped my toes into the articles recently and it's far too contentious for the amount of free time I have. Maybe once I'm retired I can spend hours and ours debating minutia that should be straightforward, but not while I still work, and retirement is a loooong way off. Anyway, good luck. ATren (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri

Thanks. As you can see, I have not edited Pachauri's page in a while as that is indeed inappropriate.

I must say, though, that I find the whole discussion quite bizarre. Kim Dabelstein and Will Connelley come up with ever new excuses why something that has now been discussed in every newspaper should not be on Wikipedia. Richard Tol (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Every" newspaper? I was opposed to the COI inclusion initially because the coverage was limited and breaking news, by now that isn't as much the case. Opposed to "Jumping the gun" is the correct description. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but an encyclopedia, we describe events after the fact, once it is possible to seperate according to weight. We aren't supposed to follow the latest news-cycle, or record every little event that happens, we are supposed to describe factually what is notable and has long term impacts/importance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RTol, it's an ongoing problem. Kim and I have had fierce debates on this, and I believe Kim's position is very inconsistent across articles. He obviously disagrees. But I've largely detached from those debates -- the articles are off my watchlist -- because it's just too much trouble trying to endlessly debate the obvious. I don't care enough.

As for you, make your points on the talk page, stay civil, be patient, and learn to use dispute resolution. Stay away from the mainpage or they will pounce on you. Just by virtue of having criticized Pachauri, you're wearing a target on your chest (as you've seen in the COI report) so keep it professional and don't given them the rope to hang you with. ATren (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On the plus side, at least we can spell William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: "even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages" Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

on top of which comments about pots and kettles come to mind... --BozMo talk 22:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

...but what do you expect from a bunch of idiots and yahoos? ATren (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop disrupting my attempt to have MN follow the BLP policy on 2/0 by mixing it up with WMCs incivility. Feel free to file a report on WMC's incivility and I promise not to dirsupt it with comments about MNs failure to follow policy. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested he strike the question, he complied. You asked that he remove it entirely (politely! ;-)) and he complied. The BLP concern is done. But realize that I've been following the WMC/MN interaction for a while now, and WMC has been hostile towards MN. If you're going to bring formal complaints against MN, I reserve the right to respond with evidence of WMC's incivility towards MN. ATren (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thus, if you're going to bring formal complaints against WMC, I reserve the right to respond with evidence of multiple editor's violations of BLP against the RL WMC. Hipocrite (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop pointing out WMC's behavioral problems.[4] The admins are obviously aware that WMC is calling people "idiots" and "yahoos" and have apparently decided it's not actionable. Repeating them over and over is unlikely to get them to change their mind. Let's move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done with that sham of a probation page. In fact, I think it's probably time to step back and do an in-depth search of his entire history, to show how aggressive he's been for years now. I know there are several hundreds of abusive diffs in there that will show his history; it's time to document them all and take this to arbcom. Clearly other methods have failed. ATren (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU renaming proposal

I have been starting to work with ChrisO and Hipocrite on a proposal related to renaming the CRU hacking incident article. Based on your comments at the Cla68's RfC it seems that you might be willing to sign on to this proposal. We are intending to approach people on their user pages to try and build some momentum and for this proposal and hopefully build a growing set of editors who are willing to accept this as a reasonable compromise and then stand together to defend it. Please stop by and weigh-in with your opinion and feel free to sign on if you are willing to help push this and defend it. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will watch it. I support the "email controversy" wording, as I've indicated in the RFC. I have never argued for Climategate in the title (or if I did, I wasn't too strongly attached to it). ATren (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC

Eh, either the diff you provide here doesn't qualify as incivility, or it does, but then so would bringing it to the attention of an admin (after all, isn't the section meant to demonstrate that, e.g., snark is all-too-typical of WMC's style?). Just a thought. Sorry about all the frustration relating to these pages.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be interpreted that way. Feel free to remove it if you like. ATren (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No I'll leave that up to you, if you decide you want to. I'm not super worried about it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider

Consider two scenarios:

1. An editor, perceiving a slight, requests action from a friendly but uninvolved administrator. The admin, trusting the editor, performs said action without fully reviewing the situation.
2. An editor, perceiving a slight, requests action from an uninvolved administrator whom they consider biased. The admin, wishing to avoid the taint of bias in both his public perceptions and personal self-image, performs said action without fully reviewing the situation.

I contend that in each scenario, the admin in question has abused the tools and the community's trust. As both motivation and due diligence are difficult to demonstrate and easy to misinterpret, please accept my apologies for not acting on your request here. The situation is being discussed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.

On an unrelated issue, I hold a strong anti-censorship stance and tend to reflect that in management of my talkpage on this website. This, however, was over the line and I have refactored it. Please help me keep that page a place where all editors are welcome to contribute. If you would like to amend or remove that comment, please feel free. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The refactoring is fine, but note that my statement was in response to "the pack is on the scent". How is referring to editors as pack animals less insulting than a bully reference?

And thank you for your considered response. As I have said, I have never doubted your good faith, even though I've been disappointed by some of your actions. ATren (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [5], [6], [7]. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I fundamentally object to this warning on every level.

Addressing the diffs:

The first diff was a bit sarcastic, but was in response to claims that spurious attacks on a major religion is somehow acceptable as long as you have a good edit history. Mastcell got no such warning for making that questionable statement in an unrelated thread.

The second diff is entirely on topic as it discusses Awickert's claim that 10% article edits should be used against TGL. I simply pointed out (politely) that percentages may be skewed on articles with extensive talk page debate. How is this not relevant?

The third diff is criticism your actions, specifically relating to that very case where you topic-banned TGL. Again, why is that not relevant in the section discussing TGL?

Given the level of combativeness on that page, I find it astounding that you would cite those three diffs, 2 of which were completely relevant and only one which might be considered a bit snarky. It has become clear to me that you have no interest in correcting your uneven enforcement (I'm still waiting for you to justify JPat's block, and that was weeks ago), and I will therefore no longer appeal to you directly. ATren (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I intended this as more a notification that everyone using the RE page as yet another venue for pointless bickering has been less than productive. I apologize for not making this clear, and for failing to mention that I was issuing a general statement to over a dozen editors. The comment on a religion was inappropriate, as has been made clear (one can hope). I whole heartedly concur that the level of combativeness on that page is a problem, and I hope that constraining discussion narrowly to the issue at hand (including providing context) will help tamp some of that down. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I happened to see it before you sent it out widely. I agree that the enforcement page has become unwieldy, though I suspect we disagree on the reasons for that. We'll leave it at that, since it seems we now have another uninvolved admin helping out (Geni) and that may improve things. ATren (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're Eligible

Ding ding ding. It has come to my attention that you are eligible for membership in BOOF and entitled to all benefits of membership therein. Best regards. JPatterson (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

:-) ATren (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Separate article proposal

I've actually been giving this a fair bit of thought since I first became aware of the discussion on GoRight's talk page. For a little while now, I have been convinced that we should break up the article and move toward a full summary style approach. In the recent "cut down" of the article by Nightmote and Hipocrite, I felt that too much good information was lost. I voiced my concern at the time, but it was clear early on that the slash-job had broad support so I didn't make a big issue out of it. So you and I are probably on a similar page, but perhaps one of us is reading the same words backwards! Although I think the "controversy" aspect of the CRU incident is probably worthy of its own article, I remain deeply concerned that it will be made into a POV fork. Before I could "sign on" to such a proposal, this fear would need to be allayed. I think the incident can now support a number of articles, though I have not yet given any consideration to titles:

• Hacking incident - shorter article, broadly defined.
  • Document specifics - substantive quotes from emails (not cherry-picked soundbites).
  • Controversy - use of documents by skeptics to promote their position, response by scientific community, war of names ("Climategate", "Swifthack").
  • Investigations - covering all inquiries, investigations, "resolutions", etc.

I am not sure if you agree with this approach, but I'd be willing to discuss this with you if you like. I've just watchlisted this page if you want to continue the discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think four articles is perhaps overkill, but it would be better than what we have. I personally think 2 would be better: one to deal with the "hacking", and another to deal with the "contents" - both would detail the respective controversies and investigations.

And I disagree with controversy being purely "use of documents by skeptics to promote their position" - that is one aspect, but non-skeptics have also been critical (Monbiot's criticism comes to mind, because he is an avid critic of the skeptics, and he expressed concern about the content). From my view, there is both rational and irrational criticism of the content; both should be represented in the "controversy" article. ATren (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we obviously come from very different directions, so we are bound to disagree on the inherent nature of the cause of the controversy. I'm not sure why Monbiot's comments are relevant here - He's really just a writer/activist type. I really do feel that the "controversy" (what you would refer to as "Climategate") is just one of a number of consequences of the hacking incident (the investigations being another, with one or two "lesser" consequences that aren't notable in their own right). Our opinions on this may differ too greatly for us to find a meaningful compromise, but I'm going to keep an open mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I mention Monbiot specifically because his critical opinion is frequently cited on skeptic BLPs, so his criticism of the email content is both relevant and compelling. In fact, I recently tried to remove a Monbiot section from a skeptic BLP and it was reverted by pro-AGW editors, so in my view that makes his opinion fair game on all articles in this topic. This is one of those examples of what I believe to be a double standard on these pages, where criticism from a writer like Monbiot is absolutely accepted when he criticizes skeptics but absolutely rejected when he criticizes proponents. It can't be both ways if it is to be truly NPOV. ATren (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the climate change topic in general, since I have restricted myself almost exclusively to the CRU article. To my mind, Monbiot is nothing more than a "pundit" when it comes to this field, so if it were up to me I would exclude his comments from the entire topic (whichever "side" they supported). -- Scjessey (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been my contention for a while now that the sourcing standard is much different for skeptics than for proponents of AGW, and Monbiot was one example I frequently cited. His opinion is prominent in a few GW skeptic articles, and several editors have refused to remove it, or even to reduce its prominence. At the same time, criticism directed at Pachauri, Connolley, RealClimate and the scientists involved in Climategate was largely suppressed by those same editors. At one point, I think, the allegations against Pachauri were reported in 5-10 major newspapers around the globe but pro-AGW editors refused to include it, while some of those same editors were steadfast about retaining less prominent and not-as-reliably sourced criticism on the skeptic pages. It is this imbalance which has turned many previously-uninvolved editors against those half-dozen-or-so editors who have dominated the AGW pages for years now. It makes us look like skeptics, when in fact, we are simply addressing imbalances resulting from years of having the same few editors control the articles for years. ATren (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the criticism directed against climate change scientists is mostly fueled by people who are unable or unwilling to accept the undeniable truth of anthropogenic climate change (I think the term "global warming" is bollocks, and I prefer not to use it). The plain fact is that science overwhelmingly confirms the climate change hypothesis, and so opponents of anthropogenic climate change theories represent a minority view. Wikipedia articles should reflect this fact, but the sad fact is that there is always going to be very little reporting by reliable sources unless some sort of mistake/scandal is involved - not a fair reflection of reality. Wikipedians should edit with the systemic bias toward controversy by the mainstream media in mind, but you regard this approach as "imbalanced". Regretfully, I have to disagree with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there certainly is a faction of denial in the editing, but there are also moderates who oppose the current status quo, and promptly get labelled "denialists" or "skeptics". So uninvolved editors (who would oppose excesses on both sides) get chased away and the only ones left are those who are passionate on the issue (on both sides). I've seen this personally, as I've been frequently labelled skeptic or denialist even though I know that I am neither. So maybe it's a clearer issue to me personally, because I know my own position on this issue, and yet I am still labelled as something I'm not because I oppose the status quo as being inherently unbalanced.

As for the question of science, this is much much more than a purely scientific issue. There is a huge political component that cannot be ignored. It would be like saying abortion is purely a medical procedure. We cannot ignore the political aspects of this issue, including public opinion and controversies. You may view climategate as a complete non-issue, but it has been reported VERY widely and there are many responsible people asking questions about those emails. We can't ignore that. For me personally, I absolutely do NOT like that people are using this controversy to discredit the entire idea of AGW, but then again, as a pro-science person, I am also concerned when I see evidence that scientists are hiding data or trying to manipulate the peer review process. This latter point doesn't make me a denier, but expressing such a sentiment around here will quickly get me labelled as such. That's a problem. If someone like me is getting hounded off this topic as a POV pusher, then something is seriously wrong. ATren (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of scientists trying to hide anything. I do see evidence of scientists getting pissed off enough to withhold data from genuine denialists who have hounded them with an exorbitant number of data requests. I agree on all your points about it being a political issue more than a science one, but surely you would agree that the mainstream media has grossly exaggerated the scale of the matter by allowing themselves to be fed by denialist claptrap? With respect to being "hounded off this topic", I understand completely. It is extremely difficult to remain neutral in a "with us or against us" atmosphere. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the mainstream media has been exaggerating. This has been a huge firestorm among skeptics and the public, and the media is simply covering what they see. See, for example, this article, in which "a distinguished panel of science luminaries" concluded that the recent controversies have marred the reputations of climate scientists. Note that they didn't say whether the controversies held merit, only that the controversies had undermined the credibility. That's what climategate is to me: that a few insignificant transgressions by a handful of scientists has undermined the work of all climate scientists, in the view of the public. That's real, and that's the controversy. The irony is, denial of the controversy has made it even worse, because the public sees it as "sweeping it under the rug" -- in fact, that very phrase is used in the Science News article. Then they come to Wikipedia and see Climategate redirects to a story primarily about the data breach, with little discussion of the controversy. Then they discover that pundits have been regularly criticizing Wikipedia for having a former RealClimate contributor dictate much of the content on these articles. Do you not see how bad that looks, for both the climate science AND Wikipedia?

There was principle from the recent WMC-Abd arbcom decision that went something like this: "admins should avoid the appearance of impropriety". WMC was outraged at this suggestion, but it is perhaps the most important thing to come out of that decision, because isn't that exactly what Climategate is? The "appearance of impropriety"? Climate scientists and Wikipedia climate editors both need to learn this lesson: that sometimes it's better to take extra steps to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing, even if you really believe what you're doing is OK. Until they learn that lesson, we will continue to have "Climategates" and Wikipedia content wars.

In any case, this has drifted off topic. I respect your disagreement of my position, and I hope you respect mine. I also hope you now realize that my opposition is not in any way denialism, and if you've mislabeled me perhaps you should re-evaluate some of the other so-called "skeptics" on those pages. For myself, I think I'm backing out of this debate again. Too much angst for something I'm really not that intersted in. :-) ATren (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I know you are in the process of preparing some sort of dispute resolution mechanism at your sandbox page, as you state here, but in the meantime would you mind toning down any flinging of accusations like here? You might also be interested in what ArbCom has had to say about casting aspersions. I am (mostly) on a wikibreak and have no intention of following up on this, but the accusations of bad faith are part of why climate change articles are on probation (though that is Lar's talkpage to manage as he pleases). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are specific comments in response to a direct question by Tony. Tony asked why the Singer "martian" claim was still in the article, and I gave my take on the situation: that the claim in fact doesn't belong but such claims are blocked from removal by the pro-AGW editors. This is absolutely true -- just look at the way WMC, Raul, and others fought to keep that completely non-notable claim in the article intro. As far as I'm concerned, the diffs I provided prove that point, but if you like I will provide more diffs to support it. I've already collected a bunch on my talk page, and I'm working to collect more.

But the point is, this is not an out-of-the blue accusation of ownership, it was a direct response to an argument: Tony implied that the claim's continued existence in the article was somehow proof that the text was not inherently bad; my response is that it's a completely spurious claim that is only there because AGW editors do not allow removal of such claims, no matter how non-notable, which actually supports my point rather than disproving it.

I am preparing evidence when I have time. It is a daunting task. I'm actually writing software to download entire page histories and provide a more efficient workflow for analyzing and collecting diffs. It's very time consuming. As requested, I've stopped making direct accusations, but that doesn't mean I can't comment on existing topics. My comments were entirely relevant to the topic, addressed editor behavior (not editors themselves), provided some supporting diffs, and only made direct accusations in response to questions where those accusations are completely relevant to the response.

So I don't think I did anything wrong. But feel free to file a request if you think otherwise. ATren (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we are a long way from RE territory here - providing diffs at usertalk in conversation with long term editors is a far cry from making unsupported accusations at articletalk to poison the well. I have not read the entirety of that discussion, but your edit summary jumped out at me when I was checking in on the telephones in science fiction thread. Still, thank you for for stopping; I in no way intended to restrict your freedom to comment on existing topics. As a side note, a more cynical person than I who had a stake in these debates might go around counseling only one "side" to up their game, gambling that the resulting behavioural contrast would in the long term outweigh the accumulation of warnings and cautions.

I know what it is like to kluge together code that only basically works well enough for its one intended task, but if you feel like sharing your workflow software that sounds very useful. My current strategy is based mainly on maintaining per article and per editor spreadsheets with expanded edit summaries and annotations. [jrb's User history script] comes in pretty handy as well. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So far I've written bits and pieces of software, in Java. I found the Mediawiki api layer, which seems to give me everything I need via an XML HTTP interface, from user contribution lists to full article histories. It even allows you to "render" a page in full - you supply the page source and the base context (i.e. en.wikipedia) and it renders you an HTML page. Very promising for previewing versions, I think. I'm even toying with the idea of doing a formatted output diff viewer (as opposed to the source differ that Mediawiki gives you).

Anyway, I've been able to download an entire page history and search for specific strings, providing the diffs where those strings are introduced. That works OK, but storing the results of every diff and searching locally would be even better. But storing all revisions in full might get unwieldy (some of those talk pages are HUGE) so I'm looking at doing a differential storage. I've worked with differencing code in the past so this should be straightforward.

Basically I want to get to the point where I can download an entire page and view diffs interactively without slow server round-trips. Then I want to add text searching (perhaps using Lucene, which I'm familiar with) and a "diff bookmark" facility to save relevant diffs for later analysis and/or reporting. I'm also considering adding a "diff timeline mixer", where you can build a multi-page, multi-editor timeline by selecting a date range and one or more editors. This will allow for seeing the big picture when a conflict spans several pages. The output would be a chronological list of all diffs by those editors over that time span. So, when you come upon a conflict between half a dozen editors, you could, with the click of a button, collect the entire interaction history of those editors for the entire duration of the conflict. Perhaps I could include filtering capability to further weed out irrelevant diffs, and an output formatter, and an automated submit to arbcom button... ;-)

This is all forward thinking, but at the very least I'd like to get the basic offline full-article diff-viewer/search/bookmark running. I'm still in the "hacking around" phase but if it starts to take shape I might consider sharing it. The problem for me is time; I have about 8 different things I'm juggling right now so it's hard to find time for this kind of thing. But I definitely want to do it -- just getting the basics done would save me a bunch of time when I want to research something. ATren (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Left you a message

Hey dude. Wanted to let you know I left a response to your post. NickCT (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"all editors in good standing"

I'd say that the reverse is absolutely true, quite frankly. A veritable rogues gallery. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I must admit i did chuckle when i saw my name in there :)mark nutley (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty. :) Heyitspeter (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Involvement

You wrote: "Regarding Lar's level of involvement in global warming, I have searched his entire contribution history (>24000 edits) and I haven't found a single edit to any climate or AGW (or any related) article in his entire history. Lar is uninvolved." Let's suppose I haven't made any edits to climate-change articles. Would you consider me an uninvolved admin on those topics?

This is largely a hypothetical question, because:

1. I can't remember if I've made any edits to climate-change articles. I doubt I've ever made any of substance, but I don't feel like looking right now.
2. I'm not insane and have no wish to participate in adminning the topic.

Still, I think involvement in a dispute this substantial might be a bit more complicated than "no article edits", which is sort of my point. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well let me put it this way, I've been watching the AGW articles for probably close to two years now, and I've never seen Lar involved in any debates, and not having a single edit to a single GW article supports my impression. If I weren't so involved in this debate, I might be less willing to make such a statement on article evidence alone.

In any case, my evidence on Lar was in direct response to Boris, who (I believe) tried to equate Lar with Schulz in his evidence. My point (perhaps clumsily made) was to show the contrast in the level of involvement of the two. In other words, regardless of the nuances of Lar's involvement, it's clearly less than Schulz's, for whom 9 of the top 10 articles (by edit) are GW related. To treat them as two sides of the same coin (as Boris seemed to be doing) was clearly wrong IMO.

In your case, Mastcell, I don't consider you as uninvolved as Lar (because I HAVE seen you in GW conflicts) nor as involved as Schulz. If you were to participate as an "uninvolved" I probably would not object unless you were making unilateral decisions. For example, 2/0 and BozMo seem to have a POV in this debate, but both have generally avoided direct engagement in the content, and except for some (IMO) overly rash decisions early on, have both participated well as "uninvolved admins" in the consensus building there. They too fall far short of Schulz level of involvement -- in fact, didn't Schulz himself filed an enforcement request recently (the pointy Scibaby request)? That's further evidence of Schulz's greater level of involvement than 2/0, BozMo, Lar, or even you.

Does that answer your question? ATren (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. To be clear, I also think Stephan is involved by any common-sense definition. I don't really recall participating in any AGW conflicts, although like I said I haven't really looked through my edit history. I do have an opinion on the administrative approach to those conflicts, and on some of the behavioral issues there. But that doesn't really separate me from Lar, 2/0, or other active admins there. In any case, it was mostly a hypothetical. Like I said, I have no intention of acting as an admin on those articles. Thank you for your response. MastCell ^Talk 02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been collapsed

[8] but in answer to your question no I only saw your comment not the rest of the thread and yes I thought that regardless of anything else your comment was a negative an inappropriate one. You cannot defend your behaviour by citing other people's any more than they should and I am not obliged to read every diff to the first on Wikipedia in order to see a comment which should not be made and ask for it to be struck. --BozMo talk 19:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

BozMo, your admonishment to me was to AGF - my question to you is: what "good faith" can be assumed in calling Lar and LHvU "clueless admins"? Really. I'd like to know what good faith assumption can be derived from such a statement. If you can identify to me how such language could possibly be good faith (maybe I did miss something) then I will gladly strike my bad faith assumption. ATren (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment was to imply that there was a definite motivation in seeking to provoke a response so that he could declare admins partial. That was an escalation in assumption of bad faith (which happened to be the most recent diff when I logged on). I am not responsible for anyone else's comments, I reiterate I saw yours and it was an AGF violation. He called some admins clueless in what was presumably an incivil attack (I haven't found where this took place yet); that is not necessarily bad faith. I do not see how you think your comment might help. --BozMo talk 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

BozMo, I respect you and I've been generally supportive of your presence there, but I strongly disagree with your admonishment here. My point is there can be no good faith reading of this edit, which calls two of the admins on the enforcement page clueless and directly questions their competence based on a typo. It is inflammatory, attacking, and adds nothing to the discussion. I see nothing wrong with speculating on the motives of such an edit, especially since I've seen this kind of thing before from this group of editors (specifically, admins Tedder and Arnold Reinhold were similarly chased away by baseless accusations of involvement after WMC did something similar -- I'll provide diffs if you want).

The entire thread is now collapsed and will soon be archived, so I will not pursue further, but I hope in the future you do not ask me to assume good faith for a comment which exhibits none. ATren (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I am afraid if I see it I will "ask me to assume good faith for a comment which exhibits none" cos thats how its supposed to work. Otherwise "man hands on misery to man it deepens as an ocean shelf" to take Larkin out of context. --BozMo talk 07:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:Please redact this

Atren, without commenting on the substance of your concern, the question posed by SBS appears to be the wrong way of looking at it. Don't go down this road. The opening line of that section says "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion." The specific items listed beneath are only items which are absolutely never acceptable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Who is SBS? I asked WMC to redact his comment, he refused, but it's a dead issue anyway (the section is now archived) so I'm not going to pursue unless his incivility continues. ATren (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yo parole officer

Or are you? :-) Well if you are to be would you be so kind as to look over this to ensure i`m not breaking any rules :-) Thanks mark nutley (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure if that's official, or what the details are. But I'm happy to help in any case. I see no problem with creating that article in your userspace. Looks like you're already getting some feedback on it, which is good.

Going forward, I know it's tough to ignore insulting language, but you really have to take the high road. The bovine stuff was just unacceptable. I've been in your position before, in heated debates with both Ratel and WMC, so I know how frustrating it can get, but you have to avoid responding poorly. And that goes for getting into revert wars too -- I happen to agree on the "conservative" labeling thing and I probably would have supported you there (mainly because we don't see criticism similarly qualified as coming from "liberal columnist so-and-so" in skeptic BLPs) but once you turn it into a revert war it becomes about your behavior rather than the content issue. One thing to remember: There is no deadline. Except for BLP issues, sometimes it's best to be patient and let things go for a while. This is especially true today on the CC pages, with all the very experienced eyes on the activities there -- problems are much more likely to be addressed in a neutral way than ever before.

So if you feel the urge to respond to what you think is baiting or condescending discussion, instead of responding in kind, feel free to come here and post a link to the whole conversation. If I think it's a violation by them I can chime in with a warning to them or take it to the probation page, and similarly if I think you overstepped, I can recommend where you could take corrective action. But most importantly, put it aside for a while and resist the urge to respond immediately while you're hot. I myself have learned that lesson (the hard way) and it's helped me immensely. Taking the time to clear your head before responding in anger is ALWAYS the best approach. So perhaps you can make it a policy for yourself that your message to me is your last comment on the disputed thread until I respond, even put that in writing, and that might help to keep you from responding in anger. In the meantime, you can work on other stuff. ATren (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Error

since he was requested diffs on the talk page is wrong. Try reading the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar requested diffs, and again. Re-read please, and retract. ATren (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Of KC, not MN William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And the first, addressed to Mark, is a request for a diff for the incivility question. Still, it is good to see you defending MN to the hilt - there can be no question about where you loyalties are William M. Connolley (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He asked for diffs twice, once to MN directly. But I'm not surprised you wikilawyer around a retraction. In any case, you started the thread, and you're quibbling over MN providing diffs inside the thread? That's really pushing it. ATren (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Parole check in :)

Would you be good enough to look over the following to ensure i am not breaking any blp stuff with this article, thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you two problems with the article: You are not showing how Montford is WP:NOTABLE, and most of the article seems to be WP:COATRACK'ing (the worst being the last paragraph) - since it seems to be an article about CRU rather than Montford. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

He is a well known and respected blogger and author. That makes him notable. How is the last paragraph about cru? It is just what he said in a submisson to the inquiry. mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the two links i gave you, they will provide insights (thats why i linked them). It is also a good idea to take a look at some AfD's to see what kind of things get turned. Do please take this in good faith, its provided as constructive criticism. (as ATren will probably agree, once he gets online).

I believe you are being helpful kim, but everything written is sourced reliably. Why exactly is it reading like the cru article? mark nutley (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets see: 7 paragraphs out of 7 in total contain information about the CRU or the hockeystick. Further most of these paragraphs are mainly about that. You are writing a biography - not an exposé on Monfords view of the hockeystick or the CRU.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok i see were you are coming from now, but if he is notable for those things then it will follow that those things would feature strongly in an article about him right? mark nutley (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, do please read the links i provided, they are there for you to learn from. What you are saying is that Monford isn't independently notable (from his book). You will need secondary reliable sources about Monford that are written independently from himself - you should also focus on Monford as a person, not on his views. - --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, there do not seem to be any blatant BLP issues. The notability concerns may have merit, I didn't have time to research it myself. But there doesn't seem to be anything blatant (and unsourced) in there. It will probably get a POV scrubbing if you bring it to mainspace. In particular stuff like "respected blogger" (respected to whom?) will have to be sourced, and will likely be removed quickly (and rightly) when you move it.

It may well be that this guy doesn't meet notability requirements -- BLP notability standards are getting tougher lately with concerns about barely-notable unwatched BLPs getting vandalized. So if it gets a notability template or AFD nom, AGF and go with it. If you have problems with WMC, ping me and I will evaluate and try to resolve it before it explodes. Though be warned, I've been very busy lately so my responses may not come immediately; use that time to disengage and work on something else. Hopefully it won't come to blows again, but if it does, you have to resist engaging in another conflict with him. ATren (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers guys, well i think notability is not an issue, he is interviewed and mentioned in the following The Spectator The Guardian New York Times The Times and Channel 4, Matt Ridley has called him a respected blogger in is in a ref so no problems there. It alos looks like Cla is giving me a hand with the article, so i think it`ll be ok. Kim would you mind if i ping you before it goes into mainspace and perhaps you could look over it? mark nutley (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not worth it

I think we are all looking foolish in getting into putting comments after a thread was closed. Lar, you, me and WMC. It is just not necessary and does tend to add to a battleground feel. Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'll cease. ATren (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Contiunued

Sorry, you are saying that there are no "battleground editors," who oppose WMC that you have seen? Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said, or meant to say. My point is that battleground editors "who oppose WMC" are more quickly dealt with, using bans and blocks. It's not that those editors do not exist, only that they are much more apt to be removed from editing (in my opinion, based on my experience in this topic area). My argument is not that "skeptic" battleground editors should be kept, but rather that all battleground editors should be removed. But that's not happening here (again, in my opinion).

If you would like evidence of this, take a look at the history of the enforcement page, where I think there's probably been half a dozen "skeptic" leaning editors who have been sanctioned (lengthy blocks or bans) but (for example) WMC remains editing despite a long history of warnings for aggressive behavior. Note, this is not an argument for bringing those "skeptic" editors back into the fold; many of them were rightly banned for battleground tactics. Nor is this a numbers argument; I'm not saying there should be an even number of editors from each side banned.

My argument is that the standard should be equally applied to all aggressive editors, and as long as WMC continues to act in the same aggressive manor that has gotten other editors banned, his lack of stronger sanction is itself evidence of the unevenness of the playing field. It's not just WMC, BTW; I could probably name a few others who have engaged in aggressive tactics, but WMC is the most consistent offender and the most glaring example of the double standard. Again, IMO. ATren (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Interesting[9].... How come you didn't place a similar warning on Cla68's talk? As far as i can tell, he is at 3RR on the very same article, with only one of them ambiguously marked (restore). Are you only monitoring/interested in WMC? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Because WMC has specifically warned me and others about unmarked reverts in the past, and I think he should follow his own standard. I've never received such a warning from Cla, though. Just in the last week WMC criticized Marknutley for an unmarked revert, so the warning to him is appropriate, I think. As for how I came upon that edit, I happened to be looking at WMC's edits in response to your 1RR warning (even though it wasn't) to Marknutley. Indeed, maybe that's why you missed WMC's revert and only warned MN? :-) ATren (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC and PA

[10] Naturally i can`t ask him to remove his comments, would you please do so, thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, just ignore it. If it continues, I will collect the diffs and report him again. But you have to ignore that stuff entirely, OK? Otherwise, if you do respond, he'll just submit your diffs as counter evidence, and admins will not be able to discern the true instigator. If you like, just post the diffs here (without even any commentary) and I will submit when I feel it is warranted.

Again, I cannot stress enough: just ignore it. If there are further items to discuss, discuss them calmly without even referencing the attack. Just talk past it as if it isn't even there. ATren (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have ignored it, but i`d like it removed if possible mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove it, and I'm not going to raise a ruckus to have it removed. Let it go. In fact, it can be argued that he was simply responding to "put up or shut up" just above, so really, nothing but drama will come if I try to have it removed. Really, Mark, you need to grow a thicker skin and ignore crap like that. Think of it this way: if they think you'll react badly, they might do it all the more just to push you into a ban, and in that case you're playing right into their hands. So be the bigger man and ignore it, and you will come out better in the end. See also this section, specifically the text "Shouting "IT'S A DUCK" is likely to excite the duck, and it may quack at you, and when you're in a shouting match with a duck, no one really wins." ATren (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)