Jump to content

User talk:2over0/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Potential edit war at Scientific opinion on climate change -- moved here from my talk

You wrote:

Please try not to edit war right after an article leaves protection; diff. Could you please in the future make explicit reference to a specific talkpage section when making reverts at that article, starting a discussion if necessary? Please note that NPOVD is an essay, while WP:EW is policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not edit warred on that page. WMC and others have. They have been gaming the POV tags for weeks, even though there is an ongoing POV discussion. Please redirect your warning to the users who are causing the problems. ATren (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding this edit, there was no consensus on talk to remove the tag, I looked. Did you request clarification from WMC? ATren (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, you warned Nigelj as well, even though he hasn't been warring there either. Why are the non-warring editors getting warnings while others get a pass? ATren (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to keep disruption at that article to a bare minimum by reminding everyone that having the lock off is not a free pass to go back to edit warring. If you have a better suggestion besides locking the article again or blocking about a dozen people, please suggest it. You are probably in the upper quarter of calm editors at that article, and I value your input. Hipocrite has made a POV-check request, perhaps that will help. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

need help

Hello! I have a question to ask you. I have nominated an article to be deleted but want to opinions of neutral editors, as all people who participate in it are politically involved and attached to the subject. How can this be done? And who makes the final decision is an article is to be deleted or not? Who does the deleting? Danz23 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, deletion discussions remain open for seven days before being closed by an uninvolved administrator. The decision is made based on the relevant policies, and is not a vote. LadyofShalott added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persian-speakers of Iran to a couple deletion sorting lists; these lists are monitored by people who might be interested in the discussion but are not necessarily involved at the article. You might also try neutrally bringing the discussion to the attention of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran; please be aware, though, of the canvassing guideline.
I have not checked to see if this has been done already, but if you have a reasonable suspicion that someone is editing from more than one account, you should follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
By the way - this is a fine place to come with such questions, but I am somewhat curious what led you here in particular. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Occupied Territories

Hey 2/0. Thanks for your comments in Talk:Occupied_territories. I left a response for you. NickCT (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied there, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection at SOoCC

Unless you are prepared to block those who remove the POV template, as other administrators have been reluctant to do, I recommend extending the protection. Any changes that have consensus can be edit protected in, as you know. --GoRight (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Disclaimer: This is NOT an attempt to hoodwink 2/0 into being my meat puppet.

Heh. Verbal chat 20:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, if you let the protection expire, I would suggest summarily blocking anyone who either adds or removes any template. Both are equally silly at this point - the article is actively being editing (a little too actively, if anything), so there's really no place for templates. The content templates are intended to attract editors to fix problems they might otherwise overlook - for instance, {{unsourced}} populates Category:Articles_lacking_sources, which can be patrolled by anyone with time on their hands and a desire to improve unsourced articles. Instead, the template has become an end unto itself. If you turn it into a third rail, then people might (emphasis on might) actually redirect their energies to the actual content of the article with one less bone of intractable contention to distract them. MastCell Talk 21:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If I am actually an AI, does WP:MEAT still apply? What about if I upload into a non-biological substrate? - 2/0 (cont.) 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh. It occurs to me I should have included a reference to why I included my disclaimer, so here it is [1]. Just in case you were unawarez. --GoRight (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I did see that (and vaguely think that there is a better earlier link, but no worries), but thank you for pointing it out. I would be faintly surprised if there are not relevant links that I have missed. Are "unawarez" illegal attention-impairing software? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It is a deadly virus/worm that attacks self-aware AI systems.  :) --GoRight (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You were somewhat over-active in archiving [2]. Proposal #2 is still current (people have been adding their votes recently) and still relevant to the existing discussion. I've restored just that section William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, thank you. The bot would have archived that one had I not temporarily deactivated it, but as the proposal is still being discussed further down it should stay. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Still poring over that page, I see the bot would not have grabbed that section. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You've extended the prot per GR's request. There is no consensus to do that. In fact, there is consensus to not do that, per the familiar proposal 2. The RFC is moribund William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It was about to expire, so I just set protection to the maximum reasonable period with the intention of easing off if possible. I am preparing a post to the talkpage - let it abide a few minutes? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that was more than a few minutes, but Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked - thank you for your patience. I tend to be a very deliberative thinker and writer, and realized this morning that doing this right requires delicate treatment. As the editors about whom I am most concerned are watching this page, I state for the record that yes, I am serious. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you should probably clarify whether 1RR is in effect - I think it should be, and will be happy to abide by it. But voluntary agreement won't be enough; it requires the sword. I hope you'll assert the simple std WP:1RR with no fancy attempts to redefine it - those are bad William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I originally stated Any material that is reverted is considered controversial, and should be discussed here before being reinserted, but have now added explicit reference to the WP:1RR essay. Thank you for bringing this up - such matters are why I wished to have a period of discussion to make sure that everyone is clear that the definition of edit warring is to be broadly construed and strictly enforced. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Pimp Hand

Mind commenting on his unblock request? Don't understand what the circumstances were that led to him being blocked--but I'm weighing whether to unblock if he changes his username. Blueboy96 02:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, after seeing what was on his original userpage, I'm not willing to unblock. Blueboy96 03:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Oops, you have email. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Occupied territories

See my comment on Occupied territories as soon as I have a promise from the two of them to behave themselves I'll remove the protection. I would prefer it if you would not do that until after they agree to abide by a no revert to the hatnote until after a resolution to the issue had been agreed.-- PBS (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin collins block - premature?

You need to call a real article RFC. The consensus against Gavin's comments is generally there, but he seems to be trying to work within the system and not abuse it grossly. The polls and discussions back and forth aren't a RFC, and lacking one or an organized consensus, I think it's premature to call him just an edit warrior and block him. Especially without warnings.

I would suggest an actual article RFC be the next step. Don't launch another open discussion under a section named "RFC", actually hold a RFC. Process exists for a reason... Using its labels but not format and actual procedcure doesn't help anything.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Gavin is trying to work within the system. I agree we want his positive contribution to the project, and look forward to the time when he is a mature and respected editor but at present he is showing repeated signs of extreme stubbornness: when anyone disagrees with him he does not listen always seems to take it personally. I have tried to engage with him on his conduct [3] but apparently have only been deemed to have lost my status of independent as a result [4]. I think that some sort of RFC on this editor may be needed more urgently that on the article if you look back through his edit history. Or GWH, perhaps you could take the time to engage with him and mentor him? --BozMo talk 20:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ordinarily, GWH, I would agree with you that blocking without a personal warning for a single edit would be uncalled for. However, I am trying to get that article back into a less combative editing mode after it has been locked due to edit warring for three weeks (less 14 hours of edit warring in the middle). GC has been involved at that article during and before the protection. I do not consider it plausible that they might not have seen the notice on the talkpage regarding renewed edit warring following unprotection or the accompanying plea for consensus prior to making any edits with which other editors at that article are sure to disagree. I note that there is already an RfC at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Request for comment, but it has nothing to do with the material GC suggested.
Inclusion of sources and use of the talkpage are certainly mitigating factors, and if you think GC has indicated that they will seek and abide by consensus, then I would have no objection to unblocking early.
Also, I am somewhat confused by the tone of your post, GWH. Do we have issues in the past that I do not recall? My email is open if you would prefer to talk there. Constructive criticism is also always welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if the tone came out badly or was offensive. The situation was engrumpenating to encounter as another uninvolved admin trying to come to grips with it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries, thank you. I remember seeing you around and generally having a favorable impression, which is why I was worried. You have a very good point about the merits of polling vs. discussion, but there is plenty of discussion aside from the straw poll at the top of that article's talk. There is also a related rejected proposal in Archive 9, as well as a great deal of discussion on article scope and coordination with the rest of that family of articles. Your suggestions and help are particularly welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've found GC very hard to talk to and extremely stubborn (and I should know) [5]. That the talk page of SOoCC is so contorted that GWH could fail to notice the existing RFC there is part of the ill-disciplined talk mess that GC has helped to create William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that section. It seems to have nothing like a normal RFC's objectives or content. For all intents and purposes it's a continuation of the free form arguments before and after it.
RFCs exist to structure a discussion enough to encourage outside participation, articulate and focus on points of agreement and disagreement, and attempt to find workable consensus on points of disagreement.
Just labeling a discussion section RFC isn't good enough.
Again - I do not disagree that a rough consensus exists. But the process here is intended to organize and formalize those to make them clear and enforceable. The talk page there - and the section labeled RFC - aren't doing that.
I don't want to blame anyone here - 2/0 is clearly working in good faith on that point. I started looking because I saw a regular I have watchlisted blocked. Taking the long step back and reading the current talk page and the archives, it's a big painful mess. GC is a leading but not sole contributor to the mess. There is clearly widespread disagreement on some other points, though GC is the focal point of the current issue.
The situation is butting several policies together - WP:RS and WP:V vs WP:UNDUE, for example. I see a lot of people talking past each other on those points (some engaging, but it doesn't stick). I think I see a consensus that the particular stuff he wants to add gives undue weight to a non-domain-specific (political analysis) metaexamination of the scientific consensus, as opposed to the consensus itself. I think I agree that's a reasonable and policy consistent consensus. But laying that out in detail and making that consensus the decision of record should be the next step.
I think GC is using WP:V and WP:RS to support his personal opinion on the subject, which is fine. That's not bad faith. I think that overall balance indicates WP:UNDUE and the like need to be taken into account. But that's not assuming bad faith by GC. Balancing policy and pillars conflicts is what consensus and the processes are all about...
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The RFC was created in good fairh by Beeblebrox. I have some disagreements with him, but it seems well over the top to label that RFC as "fake". You could try taking this up with him; or you could try a "real" RFC yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

various fairness matters

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drsjpdc (talk)

(Caveat: This is pretty lengthy. But I need help) Д-рСДжП,ДС 00:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

Isn't being an admin fun? MastCell Talk 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hush - shouldn't you be off hiding the truth that modern pharmacology is a sinister plot by a sentient telepathic AIDS virus to turn us all into the perfect hosts? On a more serious note, I will always welcome any advice or suggestions if you think I could be approaching some matter better, here or on email. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I hope you don't mind that I re-protected scientific opinion on climate change - it was physically painful to see edit summaries like (paraphrased): "RV STOP EDIT-WARRING!" I admire your willingness to roll up your sleeves and get involved in adminning those articles, and I feel really good about your RfA since you've immediately stepped up to do the sort of work that is badly needed. It's actually really informative to see how other people handle situations like this one. MastCell Talk 19:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, CC is one of those topics that I find to be just a tad too hot ;) Getting involved in it would also take away time from building my Fluidyne engine and 'underwater ready' Binishell habitat. Now if only we could devise a way to extract work from all that raging. Personal anecdote: A few years ago I was working as a divemaster on a picturesque island, one of the clients happened to be a contributor to the IPCC, it was in fact this guy. He told me 2 things which I believe that he believed 1. The only way to stop the development would be through active filtering and sequestration of atmospheric co2 and 2. That it would be unlikely to be discussed seriously by those who could bring it about for 'obvious reasons'. We all seem to just be passing time, waiting impatiently for the moment where we can exchange the uncertainty regarding best course of action with certainty of impotence. I know I am ;) Unomi (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean that geoengineering is sildenafil for the climate? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:ZooPro Page Restoration

Is it possible to have all my old pages restored?? ZooPro 05:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems another admin has com along and deleted them for some unknown reason. ZooPro 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I just restored the versions I had deleted, forgetting that they still had valid WP:CSD#U1 requests on them. I have now brought them back and removed the tags. Sorry about that. Please let me know if I missed any. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that and thank you for welcoming back. ZooPro 05:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5

I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of edits by ZP5 that appear to violate the conditions on that page. One is yesterday, two today.

  • [6] add IPCC context and mission per talk (note that you have already queried this with ZP5 and he has provided no substantive response that I can see)
  • [7] 1RR .. Get real ... see Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#add_IPCC_context_and_mission_per_talk.3F
  • [8] Bold, rmv .. Follow the link to IPCC please see: Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#add_IPCC_context_and_mission_per_talk.3F

I do not belief that ZP5 is taking the conditions you have imposed on that page seriously.

William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Another one:

His contribution to the talk appears to be "get real" [10] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Headed to that page now, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. If you haven't noticed, let me point out that he silently removed my warning from his talk page [11] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5 has long ago made a good faith offer in exchange for you unblocking him. Please do him the courtesy of responding. --GoRight (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Hello, I left a message here regarding Ibaranoff reporting me on the messageboard. While you have determined there was no violation, I have offered my perspective nonetheless, particularly the fact that Ibaranoff did not assume good faith when he first contacted me on my talk page, instead immediately threatening me with POV pushing and violating 3RR. Thanks for your time. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your further comments. I will keep an eye on that article for a little while, but do please let me know if I miss something. I also looked at the reporting user, but decided that they had been acting abrasively but not abusively; arguably I should have issued a warning or offered a personalized outside perspective, but I think in this case restricting my comments to the talkpage has the best chance of being productive at this time. As someone who does not edit music articles, your comments on sourcing look like good practice. If you develop a strong consensus at the talkpage that one version or the other is better, then edit warring becomes much easier to distinguish from productive discussion. If you think that Ibaranoff has edited aggressively for the purpose or with the effect of driving off good-faith contributors or stunting a discussion of consensus and that this is a pattern of editing, I recommend filing a Request for comment/User. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look

You protected the a page here the same editor is again engaged in an edit war as you can see here. BigDunc 20:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. These are not content disputes but attempts by a small group of editors, led by User:HighKing to remove British Isles from Wikipedia. I am objecting to their methods and this results in a form of baiting and tag teaming whereby these editors force me towards 4RR and beyond. They are all as guilty as I am of editing warring, perhaps more so, since they are imposing their POV on the rest of the community; I seek to stop them. Mister Flash (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a content dispute with no consensus for the changes a group of edkitors are repeatedly inserting at multiple articles, I have asked for protection at this new page and please ask me if you require further details. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
@ Mister Flash you are responsible for your own edits no one is forcing you to push the undo button. BigDunc 20:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that there is a group of editors working together as a team to insert their desired position, I have clearly asked them to stop this editing style as it is creating edit wars at multiple articles, the editors are under the restrictions relating to the Irish troubles arbcom case. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It sure does you and Mister Flash reverting to get your way. BigDunc 21:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention you, the one with the daft characters, Snowded and HighKing. Mister Flash (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Off2riorob, you seem quite happy to pitch in reverting yourself...oh and lobbying against the wrong version. Mister Flash's aggression, as indicated by his comment above, and what he now sees as his unfettered right to revert at will, is the source of the disruption. Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this related to The Troubles? Or, more to the point, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, or something similar? I am definitely missing some context at the moment, and would prefer not to act further until I understand the wider issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good move, Black Kite seems to have been pushed over the edge to retirement by his good faith involvement, basically yes it is related to the troubles Irish arbcom, a bunch of editors involved in that case are on a mission to remove the wording the British isles they don't seem to want to be called that as they are from Ireland, and the editors have gone around a few articles, two or three of which are now locked as a result of the resulting edit war that they caused by pushing their favored position without consensus, apart from between themselves and using multiple editors working together at multiple articles, the whole thing could imo use returning to arbcom for an upgrade. For an understanding, have a look at the recent comments here Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree good work BK, no need for blocks on this, 2over0 this could be included as part of the Arbcom on the troubles which has a 1RR in place which Mister Flash was informed about but chose to ignore. Also Off2riorob if you have evidence of editors acting in concert then provide it as the same accusation has been labeled at you. Also do you know that all theses editors are from Ireland another unfounded claim, so put up or shut up. BigDunc 16:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The troubles is related to wherever these editors go, they create it as they move around from article to article. As I said yesterday, I have started a report and am currently adding evidence to it, if and when I have enough detail I will file the report, your attempts to deflect from your behavior does not change the easily visible reality of your actions. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I made the exact same amount of edits as you did so if I did something wrong you did also. BigDunc 17:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Again as I said, my edits are incomparable to yours, I made a revert for an editor to an edit in an attempt to stop him being blocked for your report, and I reverted to the original long term content in an attempt to stop an edit war and I made a blind edit in another attempt to stop another edit war on another article, my input to the situation is completely different from your position, you were part of a combined attempt to push through your favored position together with your like minded editors which resulted multiple edit wars and at least two articles being locked to editing. I am not an arbcom Irish troubles editor I am not involved in this push to insert a position by multiple editors all of whom are related to the troubles articles without consensus at multiple locations. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't report anyone, and I could say the exact same thing you did that you were part of a campaign with MT but I know that is unfounded as much as your spurious claims of a conspiracy are. I will not be taking up this users talk page any longer, if you want to say anything to me use my talk. BigDunc 18:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to self for later use: Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, linked above, and related discussions are required reading before acting. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

HJ's RFA

It's up. WP:RFA --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :). - 2/0 (cont.) 10:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind but, since you offered, I directed a neutral participant to your talk page to discuss the ANEW report. Just a heads up. Many thanks and sorry to trouble you (I'm sure you have other things to do). Best, HJMitchell You rang? 21:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Replied at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell#Toddst1's oppose. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Need advice (you offered).

I would like to move the bio on Dr. Stephen Press, [[12]] to its own article, before it gets dissected any further. Is there any reason I shouldn't do that now? ppgdc 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumphotographer (talk • contribs)

I have no opinion on the matter, but the page is being actively edited so I asked at User talk:Drsjpdc/Stephen J. Press2. When it is ready to go live, please use the move button at the top of the page rather than copy/pasting the content - this preserves the attribution history of the article, and is necessary for licensing purposes. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I moved it that way. I was shocked when I saw it missing. ppgdc (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me - sorry about the shock. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That Global Warming RfC (you know the one...)

An editor has approached me and requested I open another RfC under what I described at ANI as a "nice, neutral, dram-free" title. I've agreed to consider the request if the editor sends me an email outlining his concerns with a few diffs (I don't want the whole climate change argument reopening on my talk page!) and after consultation with you, since you closed the last one. I won't open it if you think it's a bad idea, though I think it could be the best forum to air these grievances. Any thoughts? HJMitchell You rang? 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:HJ Mitchell#Global warming RfC. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF

WTF??? Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Context 1 Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Context 2 Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite! WTF indeed! 1) A comparison between your edit profile and mine is totally meaningless in regard to any point you are trying to make here. What are you saying - your opinion is worth more than mine? Stroll on! 2) Using the term "British Isles and Ireland" - a term which is wrong since the BI already includes Ireland, as you know but don't like, is WP:BAIT and your use of it in an article is sheer vandalism. Mister Flash (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I am saying you reference to vandalism is a serious breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette. 2over0 in his wisdom turned a blind eye to your last 4RR on the basis of Context. I dont know if you 4RRs on Five Peaks Challenge is technically a breach; I'm certainly not going to bother going to the effort of filing a report when the Bright-line rule that is 3RR can be overturned on the whimsy of an Admin. I just think 2over0, should either award himself a barnstar for his sterling work or sort out the mess he has created. Þjóðólfr (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephen J. Press

Why did you move this article from mainspace to begin with?

Did you know the article was created mostly by a user, User:Platinumphotographer, whose user page was created by the subject of the article, without any discussion between them. I smell dirty socks trying to avoid a COI issue.[13] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I just moved the userspace version temporarily to the mainspace so I could fix the copy/paste move by recombining the edit history, but put it back. I have not reviewed the article since the AfD, so I was not comfortable being the one to take it live; doubly so as I expect that I am WP:INVOLVED on any issue dealing with chiropractic. Both of those users are completely open that they have a potential CoI and know each other in real life (based on discussion with sjp at his page; I can look it up if you would like). The one creating the other's userspace is at least consistent with him doing a favor for a buddy as a way of encouraging them to stick around here. There may be other issues (search WP:RS/N for discussions of chiropractic journals), but I do not think that sockpuppetry is one of them. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it is. They carefully made blocks of edits, first one then the other on the Gary Auerbach article, then all their edits are one block, then their other edits for the few articles Platinumphotographer has been involved in. Look at their edit histories and run through the edits the good doctor made to the phogotrapher's user page. I'm not buying any of it. They did both go quiet and stop trying to bully me, though, when I pushed and suggested I would report it. If something's rotten, holding your nose and saying you don't smell it won't help.
Also, Platinumphotographer is putting in the kind of unattractive and unencyclopedic vanity writing that usually only comes in badly written autobiographies, like the ridiculous degree list that spells: puff piece written by subject to bolster own ego. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I posted at AN/I.[14] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

getting photo

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drsjpdc (talk)

RfA Thanks

EW proposal, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

I actually just made a very similar proposal right below yours on ANI (without reading yours). You may be interested. I certainly think such a system could go a long way to stopping edit wars without stifling improvement. Prodego talk 23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy Farfalloni, that is a huge number of parties. Just in time for the new year, too. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Protocol

Regarding this unfortunately necessary block, do you think it's appropriate to add a template to Jzyehoshua's page to indicate how to proceed? I'm not suggesting the block should be appealed or would be overturned if it were, but he might well be in the dark and we run the risk of complaints when it expires. Well...more complaints; I suspect there will be calls for justice either way.  Frank  |  talk  17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right - I started that reply with no intention of blocking, but they decided to resume edit warring while I was writing, and I plumb forgot to put the uw-block template in. Thank you for pointing this out. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the template. I sort of got distracted and forgot, but it was a pretty obvious call. --BozMo talk 09:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally I am clearly in deep respect of the way you are taking on the GW articles where I have never done more than dabble. Please never hesitate to undo or change any of my admin actions if you think there is a better way. I also am kind of involved in the articles as an editor at least expressing opinion on talk or if you go back far enough reverting (although in the great sock wars it was hard not to get involved in some reverting); so I would bow to your greater impartiality on principle. But my own gut feel is I am neutral enough to use tools on particular disputes I haven't been involved in, and I will carry on.--BozMo talk 09:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A proud milestone in any admin's career

Is this the first accusation of bias leveled at you by someone you've blocked? Sniff... they grow up so fast... :P MastCell Talk 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think so, but this is a far more entertaining read. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... the Pimp Hand's defenses sound surprisingly similar to those voiced here and here by Immature Basophil (talk · contribs)... small world. Or maybe... nah. Couldn't be. MastCell Talk 19:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
User talk:MastCell/Archive 20#Slander Me Again Like You Did On the Administrator's Notice Board, And I Will Request You Get Blocked As Well - based on the joke mileage you have been getting out of that whole blocking yourself snafu, I have raised a completely rational and articulate thread at AN/I requesting that you be topic banned from User:MastCell, Kurt Gödel, and the BLP of any non-immunocompromised individuals, broadly construed. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I am impressed at your ability to communicate difficult, unpleasant truths in a palatable manner. I agree that I've probably driven the self-block into the ground. :P On a more serious tip, I think you're doing an excellent job as an admin. The way you've jumped into the fuss du jour and effectively refereed it is really impressive. Clearly the widespread confidence in you was well-placed. :) MastCell Talk 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
What? No! Do not stop bringing up your block - do you know how difficult it was to find even one error about which to kid you? I can send more glue, if that would help. and thank you - really, thank you ... I do my best. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

StevenMario, again

Could you take another look at StevenMario? He's edit-warring again on another article, after coming off your block for that yesterday - here's the current 3RR report... thanks! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring right off a block with no attempt at forging consensus? Nipped. As a side note, in my admittedly limited experience, Baseball Bugs is at least reasonable and usually right. I have not checked why they left that comment, but there is a very good chance that it is worth discussing. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased Admin action disguised as "fixing"

You removed some of my best arguments and counterarguments through your use of selective "collapsing."

For example,

1. You apparently removed my explanation that WP:UNDUE doesn't apply since an expert said the event was a "major confusion"

2. You removed my criticism of Schulz's use of non-wikipedia policy to justify exclusion

If you can't "moderate" fairly then you should find someone who can - it looks like you are trying to push an agenda. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The material I collapsed or removed included eleven edits by you:
[15], the opening statement
  • The original formulation of that RfC used loaded language that might be construed as an attempt to bias the responses received. The whole point to a Request for comment is to request input from new editors who come to a discussion with fresh eyes. Stating a desired conclusion is an easy mistake to make, but I am mildly surprised that nobody fixed the wording in the first four days of discussion.
  • Including the proposed text is fine, though I think it is better practice to leave the discussion a bit more open and fluid, especially at the outset. If you wish to put the proposed text after the opening statement now, that would be fine. As the text is already present in the linked background sections, it might work best under a {{hat}} - your call.
  • A brief summary of the discussion that led up to the RfC is a good idea, but poorly implemented. It is better to agree on wording before opening an RfC to ensure that the best arguments and presentation are being used. It might even come to pass that this process of setting forth the points of disagreement clearly and concisely could obviate the need for an RfC. The points you mention are covered in the ensuing discussion or the background sections linked in the new opening statement. Part of the point of consensus is that the quality of an argument is more important than its origins.
  • Argument for inclusion #1 is mistaken. From WP:DUE: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Whether this is the case or not is, of course, the subject of the RfC.
  • There may be occasions when taking a straw poll is useful as a means to finish out a discussion, especially a complex discussion where people are led to compromise and consensus through rational argumentation. It is not, however, a substitute for discussion. Please in the next RfC you open take more care to phrase the request to facilitate discussion and promote input from outside editors.
[16] is no longer relevant.
[17] comprises equal parts arguing at Stephan Schulz and a digression; please try to focus your comments on encouraging discussion and working towards consensus. Policy pages are descriptive, not prescriptive - they are written to reflect current actual practice, not to impose some outside ideal. Similarly, citing a guideline is a labor saving technique for pointing out similarities between the present discussion and the more general case.
[18] is no longer relevant.
[19] is focused solely on attacking William M. Connolley. Please be aware of and abide by the civility policy.
[20] is a touch rude, but would not be horribly out of place in one of the related discussions.
[21] states that consensus is needed before a newly added section may be removed. As policies such as NPOV are intended to apply to articles at all times and the present debate centers on said compliance, this is mistaken.
[22], [23], and [24]- Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
[25] discusses the IPCC itself rather than improvements to the Wikipedia article describing the Panel.

As an unrelated point, might I encourage you to use more descriptive edit summaries as a courtesy to your fellow editors? If you go to Preferences → Editing there is a checkbox labeled Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC RFC?

I notice you've done some collapsing. In general this is good, but I'm afraid I can no longer *find* the RFC that you claim has been fixed. Oh, hold on, is it "RfC: What does WP:DUE indicate regarding errors in an IPCC report?" In that case, where are involved editors supposed to comment? Or do you think you know all our opinions? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The old title and summary were clearly unacceptable, but if you think that I have missed the point or misrepresented anything, please fix it. I moved the involved comment threads to the Background section, with links to where essentially the same issues had been discussed during the run up to the RfC. The closest I could find to an uninvolved commenter in the first four days of that RfC is TenOfAllTrades, who reverted the proposed material twice, commented on the RfC once, and commented on another thread after the RfC opened. If I missed anyone, please mention it here or notify them yourself. I am far from confident that this is the best way to handle the tendency of RfCs to turn into just another polite discussion among the editors who were already at an impasse, but it at least avoids swamping debate at the outset. There are several cogent points made in what is now the Background section, and they should certainly be weighed in determining consensus from that discussion. I thought about trying to summarize them in or immediately following the opening statement, but that has far too great a likelihood of misrepresenting someone, and the points made in response would also need to be summarized... I guess with the worst of the off-topic sniping collapsed, the involved debate could be moved back into the RfC proper without discouraging uninvolved editors. If you would like to do that and fix the links, that would be fine. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, so I found the right RFC then. But am I reading the current RFC wording you've put there correctly? You don't want involved editors to comment? I think that is wrong. I think that permitting involved editors to state their position in an arbitrarily chosen but small amount of text (100 words perhaps) rigidly enfored, and with no adding in comments after other editors comments, would be useful and would not swamp uninvolveds. But it would provide a handy summary - I'm not sure the links available there do that. The key is to permit only a short statement, and only one, to prevent degeneration William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, it sounds like moving those comments is interfering with discussion rather than promoting it. I generally agree with your proposition for focusing discussion (I think I tried something similar last time I opened an RfC, but it has been a while), but I am not sure it would be fair at this point to ask everyone to come back and make their points again. I am asking GoRight what they want done with their currently stricken initial comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, might I request that you talk it out somewhere next time something like this comes up? I understand how presentation of information can bias its reception, but when it is not particularly time sensitive there are better avenues to pursue first. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I see there is now Section for comments from involved editors. It needs some attention. Since the familiar whingers will whinge if I fix anything up there (yes, that is a reply to your request passed on from GR) could you have a go at fixing it? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeout. I fixed it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you were referring to the fact that GoRight's initial comment is out of chronological order in the new schema. It did not really make sense to put it anywhere else (after the first hat/hab is in the middle of a threaded discussion, which then proceeds towards pear-shaped discursion), so I just left it at the top to err on the side of minimal refactoring. I was hoping to have a lazy Friday and get some actual editing done (see next two threads for how well that is going), so I put a deeper review on a back burner for a while. I parsed the comment you moved as combative but basically on topic, but as the same point is made several times in that discussion, that is fine. Also - thank you for pointing out that I should have been transparent that GoRight brought that other edit to my attention, I will try to be more careful in future. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef Blocking without 3RR or Block?

You indef blocked two users, Rameses and Brittainia without warning. Neither of them had a 3RR warning in the past year. They were accused of being sockpuppets and checkusered in the past without any due procedure by Raul64. They explained they were a husband and wife and have not been editing any of the same articles recently. Rameses has been an editor since July 2004. Do you believe you acted fairly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.204.229 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I remember the above as having some truth. Email? --BozMo talk 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Link to AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without 3RR or Warning?. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
@BozMo - are you asking me for an email discussing this? I am happy to oblige, I just would not want to go through the effort of digging up the history for no reason. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Its ok, I found the archive Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive77#Ramses_and_Brittainia_RFCU_-_sockpuppeting_confirmed. I am happy if you were already aware of it, but thought I ought to point out the history. --BozMo talk 21:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is the relevant link - it is from well before my time dealing with such issues, but was brought to my attention in the SBHB link following. I think most of the relevant recent talk is at User talk:2over0/Archive 3#Block of Brittainia, User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris#Brittainia/Rameses, and User talk:2over0/Archive 3#Canvassing. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth starting a thread over?

[26] - but according to the guidelines, i'd thought i should at least mention it somewhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this - I asked the IP to take it to Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. I saw the original change and verified that the linked articles are as described in the edit summary, and agreed that it was a simple change unlikely to incite controversy or need discussion. I will keep an eye on it for a little while, but I will be out for the night in a few hours - AN3, RFPP, or AIV, you know the drill. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Articles related to climate change are now subject to general sanctions per the abovelinked page. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way I did this [27]. I have been on that talk page discussing with him but on the only content issue raised (including NIPCC) [28] I seem to be aligned with him so I thought I would do a civility warning even though I was in the room. Per User_talk:BozMo#NOTICE:_Climate_Change_articles do step in if you think I am being too bold... --BozMo talk 19:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I was weighing what to do there, and I think your request to that user is a good one. Did you plan on logging it as an official notification? For myself, I am just going by the old rules until the probation settles in for fear of wikilawyering. Blockable behavior is blockable behavior, after all. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess the answer to your question is no. I will probably just be a bit more rigorous in applying the old rules. --BozMo talk 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit waring warning at IPCC please ...

If you intend to enforce these new probation sanctions even handedly please issue this same warning at the IPCC article. --GoRight (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking about this one. AFAIK I have only edited this article on spam/vandalism (most recently once in Dec 2009 [29] prior to which twice on 13 April 2008 reverting two Scibaby socks) so I would be prepared to enforce it, and I started typing the notice out. However the version which was protected was the version with the contentious text supported by GoRight in, so moving from protection to permanent veto might remove one side's motivation to get consensus. I think waiting until some agreement has been reached on the glacier thing first (e.g. to move it to another article) before we drop protection gives the best chance of achieving consensus. What do you reckon? --BozMo talk 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
And in the example I provide above the article was protected with the contested removal supported by TS and ChrisO. If you're going to defacto lock in the WP:WRONGVERSION when it suits the warmers you also have to be willing to lock in the WP:WRONGVERSION when it suits the skeptics. Otherwise you will only be proving my point that these sanctions will be disproportionately targeted at the skeptics in a non-neutral manner. --GoRight (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
@Bozmo - Ale jrb's userhist script agrees with your memory. Jayron32 is currently holding the protection for that article, so I want to consult with them after seeing what people have to say at the talkpage (I am still cooking dinner, so it will be a while yet and I have not checked the current status as of this post). - 2/0 (cont.) 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

your adminly duties wanted

There's a request at WP:RFPP to full-protect Global warming. Since you are (apparently) having success with that general content area, can you handle it? Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see comments at RFPP before protecting. There may be better ways to handle the situation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I concede Boris's point. A stern warning might be more appropriate. --TS 04:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
There was a 3RR/EW violation, and BozMo took care of it while I was playing catch up. I think everything else is okay for the nonce, but I will check back in the morning. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another one for you at RFPP, this one on RealClimate. Mind handling it? tedder (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Prolog got it, but thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm tempted to refer any related protections to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. What do you think? tedder (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the thought of funneling reports towards people already familiar with the area and willing to act on the probation. I am not sure about the location, though - would we eventually need to create AN/CC/Archives? That seems out of place. I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Should we encourage people to direct page protection requests here? about putting it there. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and that was very well framed. I'll watch that discussion. tedder (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GW and ZuluPapa5

I feel like I'm being snippy and unproductive.[30][31] People, whether for better or worse, won't tell you that until it's too late. For reasons that to criticize the critic would be unwise. I, of course, don't buy into that; and I'll be frank and forthright and ask you: what do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[32]. --GoRight (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I am a big fan of ignoring comments or parts of comments I find unproductive - the trick is to make sure that it takes more time and effort to rile you up than it takes you to avoid it. In this case, instead of linking BAIT you might have ignored the history that lead you to think baiting, and instead pointed to where such proposals have been made and rejected before. Even just WP:RTA would work; it would be a bit terse, but would cost almost none of your finite time and attention (a pretty good ratio, I would say). The best part about this approach is that it increases the behavioral contrast between people here to build an encyclopedia and people who are just here for a flamewar or to push some outside objective (not saying that that is the case here, obviously, just making a general observation).
So, yeah, a bit on the snippy side - thank you for having the self-awareness to notice. On the other hand, taking it to usertalk is a good step. As for ZP5's original comment, TS basically dismissed it when they first raised it, and everyone else ignored it until the article was edited. As long as people are discussing at the talkpage more than in edit summaries, there is yet hope for that article. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In passing...

For your patient and diligent (not to say thankless) work on climate change.

Thank you, it's a big task and you're doing remarkably well. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :). Do please drop me a line when I royally foul things up or, better yet, send a clue my way before I go too far. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

William Connolley

Hi, since there are article that are sanctionable now under the new guidelines I think this article needs some administrator attentions. There is a slow ongoing edit war going on there about WMC loss of administratorship. I personally don't want anything to do with this so I am bringing it to your attentions and you can decide what is best. Some are saying that there is a breach in WP:BLP policies and that some of the references used are know to be inaccurate. I just thought I'd bring this to others attentions before things get to hot to handle. The template being used is on the talk page. I hope I was correct to bring here. AN/I seemed like a bad place to bring it for obvious reasons. Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That editor just got a notification of probation and a final BLP warning ... I guess I am okay with seeing if those help. I will glance through their contributions for the next few days, but do please bring it up if they step over the line. Hipocrite already removed the BLP-violating blog-sourced material.
The RfC seems to be an exercise in talking past each other, which tempts me to lock the edit-warred material out of the article until it concludes, on pain of blocking - do you think that would help? I am obviously familiar with several of the regulars at that article, but have not been following it at all.
On the topic of not watching articles in serious need of attention, I stopped monitoring Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident a while ago. If anyone wants to bring diffs to bring me quickly up to speed for some action between normal editing and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, I would be happy to take a look. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Uncle. I'm a talk page lurker here, I didn't have that article watchlisted. I agree that the RFC is failing. I'm going to prod the article now. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Stephen Schultz has been doing a pretty good job watching things there. I think if the new editors and anon IP activities were stopped it might make it easier for those who are trying to keep things free of violations may help. I don't really know the players except for the ones constantly being brought to a board. I stopped watching the other one long ago, too noisy for me. If you know some of the editors from other articles causing problems then by all means let them know someone else is watching at the minimum. Sorry I can't be more help. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Advisor

A little bit more context from the people whose sound advice you follow. - lol Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming faq edit war

First, thanks for your kind note on my talk page.

The NPOV template I put up on F22 in order to draw attention to the dispute discussion in the gw talk page has been deleted prior to consensus being achieved on the grounds that NPOV template is not appropriate for talk space. I'm having difficulty coming up with a polite response to this that achieves the simple goal of letting people know that F22 is disputed and not edit warring. Could you please intervene so that it's fairly resolved. F22 is a very recent addition and I can't see where it was discussed prior to be posting on 30, December by TS. TMLutas (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked TS please to discuss such things in future; unilaterally adding to the FAQ without establishing wording and need is not the best way to go about it. The wording could use some work, but I think the discussion retroactively indicates the need. Hopefully it will be hammered out at talk now, but you are not going to get anywhere arguing that any single paper should be given the same space and weight in an article as the general consensus view of the field. The issue of whether the FAQ is being inappropriately used to dismiss every new source is, of course, entirely separate. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Anybody currently looking at the FAQ but not at the talk page would have no idea that F22 is controversial in any way. Is the POV template acceptable? Can it be put back in there?
I do not believe that any single paper should be given the same space and weight as consensus. That's a straw man that I would never intentionally give the impression I'm supporting. I'm saying that minority views should have some representation appropriately weighted and appropriate weighting should be determined as WP:WEIGHT lays it out, with general articles highly tilted towards consensus citations and text balance and specialist articles like global cooling less imbalanced but clearly identifying what is consensus and what is minority opinion. TMLutas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that any editor who has the FAQ watchlisted is also watching Talk:Global warming - it is only transcluded to one page ([33]).
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that overweighting single papers is your point or intention, only that avoiding it seems to be the purpose of that particular entry. You are correct that NPOV is very clear that minority opinions must be covered in relation to their prominence, but that FAQ is meant to address the entirely separate issue of reporting papers as they come out instead of waiting for the results to be replicated and integrated into the general understanding of the field. If I may be permitted a small digression into a field about which I care a bit more than all the hot air around climate change, every 18 months or so a new paper comes out claiming that a particular material is "harder than diamond" under some set of conditions. The reports are based on phonon frequencies or single-crystal compressibility or indentation or whatever ... and yet, I would guess that there is a very good chance that you have never heard of any of them. The materials science community will sit up and notice when materials with interesting properties are synthesized, and it will become apparent fairly quickly that the particular paper in question has not had enough impact on the field to warrant reporting it here. Superhard materials is not overrun with a blow-by-blow of the history precisely because waiting for the relevant academic community to indicate how a result should be weighted is the proper procedure here. Contrast this with the new iron-based high temperature superconductors: they are still new and exciting (last I checked, we were still at the "working out a phenomenological model" stage, with the underlying physics being summarized as "not BCS"). And yet, since the community has clearly indicated that the discovery is highly significant (not to mention fascinating), there is a significant section treating the phenomenon at High-temperature superconductivity.
All of which is to say, waiting to see how a new result is received has nothing to do with minority opinions, and I remain unclear as to how FAQ22 conflates the two. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I only heard about FAQ22 in a functional attempt to squash coverage of the entire decade just ended on global cooling. Now global cooling is different than global warming and the majoritarian opinion does not need so much space as in a general purpose page like global warming as per WP:WEIGHT. Global cooling is also much shorter, just 32k v 98k for global warming and thus there's plenty of headroom to weight properly and no need to squash on WP:TOOLONG grounds that appropriate weighting necessarily will cause article splitting.
I'm in my 3rd week of debating coming up with some sort of section covering the decade. Whether or not there's actual bad faith intent, the result is indistinguishable, so far, from a bad faith attempt to squash the global cooling minority opinion which does have some support, especially among solar scientists, especially in Russia. The debate predates F22's creation but the same issues are being hashed out. So when F22 was brought up by Bertport as a FAQ that has applicability also in global cooling, I trundled on over and the rest is history. I know that F22 is useful in attempts to squash because that's what's happening to my own pendin edit on global cooling. TMLutas (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you want the Neutral point of view noticeboard (recall that DUE is a section of NPOV) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force - outside volunteers there can discuss whether the sources presented justify the language proposed. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly an RFC. Might be a good idea not to make accusations of bad faith, though. I wrote that FAQ question so I know for certain no ulterior motives went into it. --TS 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please close this thread? It's not going anywhere. And it can't go anywhere because one "side" of the dispute doesn't understand how science is done and is more interested in denigrating scientists. Of course, a better option would be to ban the people who know nothing from editing the page... But the odds of that happening are less than my head spontaneously exploding in the next 5 seconds. -Atmoz (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not object if someone else were to close that thread, but as long as the conversation does not stray afoul of WP:CIVIL or wander completely off topic, I am not touching that one. It is my expressed opinion that the entry is basically a good distillation of policy, though I have not ventured over to Talk:Global cooling or otherwise checked to see if it is being used to stifle legitimate discussion or prevent the WP:DUE use of sources. Suggest in the thread that it be closed? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear 2/0

I have no polite response to your message. "You are way out of bounds" would be by far the nicest thing I could say. Please refrain from posting on my talk page in the future. Consider that a polite, formal request. I also am not watching your talk, so there's no need to reply.

Oh PS, I really hope you warned folks other than me. Really I do. It would restore my faith in you if you warned the AGW folks..
PPS. I changed my mind. Please spare me the trouble of combing through your contribs: please post a list here on talk of everyone that you warned. I'm checking for bias, of course. • Ling.Nut 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The climate change probation enforcement log is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. If you would like to see examples of informal requests, advice, and notifications I have discussed, pretty much the entirety of my time on Wikipedia for the last few weeks has been devoted to trying to restore a normal collaborative editing environment at our climate change articles. Referring to the AGW folks is an example of what I would really prefer that you avoid in future - it is unfair to a diverse group of editors to tar them all with the same brush.
For archival purposes: formal GS/CC warning citing [34] and [35]. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Page deletion and possible stalking ...

I had noticed a conversation at [36] where Mark was working on an article on the Gore Effect in his user space. Bozmo, you, and even KDP seemed OK with him trying to work on it there.

Seeing this I went to take a look and I made a few formatting and cleanup edits to help Mark out. This morning I find that ChrisO has appeared out of no where and had the page speedily deleted. We will pursue an appeal of this. If you think that it is acceptable for Mark to work on this in his own user space as your comments seemed to suggest (since you took not action to have it removed yourself), could you please weigh in on this?

Also, I believe that this MAY be an indication that ChrisO is beginning to stalk me so I have placed a notice to that effect on his talk page indicating that if he persists appropriate resolutions will be pursued. This is just FYI for now and to register that I will be paying attention to this issue and may be seeking assistance in this regards should the problem continue to manifest itself. --GoRight (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody would say that that draft should be moved to articlespace any time soon, but glancing through it I considered: potentially there is coverage of this term that is not in-universe; public figures are subject to satire as a matter of course; and the page is not indexed by search engines (part of {{userspace draft}}). On the other hand, Dank makes a compelling case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. I am going to wait and see how the draft develops over the next few days, but thank you for the heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I should add that I've responded to GoRight's completely false claims about me here, following Tony Sidaway's request for article probation sanctions against GoRight for what Tony characterises as a "rampage" today. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I have decided to make the following public statement, [37]. I do, however, appreciate the create way that CO was able to call my actions a "rampage" without actually having himself called it a "rampage". I'll have to remember that technique.  :)

Since you appear to be currently online, invite your input here. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good conclusion from the available data, but when I started looking at Carbon tax I decided I was too tired to be confident of making good decisions and instead went to bed. I will check it out if Lar does not solve it first, thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

MN close

I object to the wording of your close; see the page. I don't think you've thought it through carefully. The fact that you *are* closing it like this... hmm, well, that's another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC, why not present diffs there to support your case? There's only vague accusations from you. ATren (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing vague there. If you're asking for edits by MN that could be deemed problematic but not reuiring enforcement, I'm sure I could dig some up but I'd (a) rather not waste my time and (b) it would be better for peace+quiet not to stir up trouble like that. But If I need to in order to get the close changed, I will William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I've just read your comment there. You've misunderstood. I did *not* say I wanted this to stay open William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, then I misunderstood. I'll read it again. ATren (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I've struck my comment there ATren (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Struck the proposal pending further discussion. Thank you for mentioning this point. Your objection is fair - in any way problematic is probably too strong - but I meant the non-italicized text as explanatory, with the actual recorded result only to be the sentence in italics. For your other point, I left a comment there; I would not say that a statement to the effect of nobody is allowed to change this qualifies as a good faith objection, but less gameable wording is probably in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go look there William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor q

I am a bit surprised by what appears to be an unprovoked personal attack on me here: Talk:Global_warming#1.29_homeostasis_2.29_established_fact. Did I miss something> my comment was intended to be observational and I was surprised to see it termed "childish spite" as well as the various "unlike many editors" comments which are generally unhelpful. Anyway if you think the response was deserved perhaps you should collapse the thread and I'll forget it. --BozMo talk 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Had you written But given some of your other comments I guess getting the term right is not going to be a worry at me I'd have been offended. So while I think L has grossly over-reacted, your hands aren't quite clean. There are some other "attacks" on others, too, that might merit note, e.g. [38] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, ok. My comment did follow on immediately from [39] where he did make some comments about his personal definitions of things. You would have been offended because you are not fumbling words in Global Warming. If someone had made it to me in a subject where I was struggling with words I think I would have taken it without offence. --BozMo talk 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah well. I leave the should-there-be-action type stuff to you admin types :-). Aside: his Bertport... honestly, if I want to be contradicted without insight or explanation I have a 14 year old nephew who is willing (nay, eager) to oblige; I don't need to come to wikipedia for that. could be taken amiss too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with WMC's reading above, at least based on a quick review of the section. As Lar is fond of saying, there are some awfully sharp elbows going around. A while back I edited fairly extensively with (read: against) Ludwigs2 on some alternative medicine and pseudoscience articles. The above assessment looks fair to me, but I intend to minimize my interactions with Ludwigs2 in an administrative capacity. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please judge

I've been trying, I thought quite patiently, to work through some coverage of global cooling in the 2000s in the global cooling article. It's been half a month with little serious accommodation going on with getting something acceptable up, even an acknowledgment of popular press interest. The talk's gone dead and so absent anybody declaring they didn't want a section at all, I stubbed one, text to be determined later. I joked that I was being bold on this most timid of edits. William M Connolley reverted within a few minutes calling a section heading and a stub notice "reckless".

As I looked at the history of the talk page, I noticed the following edit notice from WMC "people have seemed to give up even bothering to respond to you; that seems like a good idea to me" which I had overlooked before. This put the following section in a different light User talk:Guettarda#Tut. I took it originally for some odd joke and tried to play along (not very well). Now it looks a bit more like bringing somebody friendly in line that had gotten off sides on an attempt to simply not cooperate on edits, relying on me to either go away or go down the road of editing without a consensus and getting reverted to death over it. This can't be consistent with policy if it's real. Am I adding 2 plus 2 and getting 5 or does this stink as much as I think it stinks. TMLutas (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

People have got depressingly used to TML pushing his POV there, which is why most have given up. TML's idea is fundamentally misconstrued; it is like someone trying to push serious discussion of aether into general relativity, and then complaining that none of the editors will "accomodate" him. He has been told this again and again, but won't listen William M. Connolley (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've made it very clear that I wanted one of two behaviors. Editors should either say that they do not want a section at all and give their reasons for it or they should help pitch in on improving the text until it arrives at consensus and then we publish it. There are exactly zero texts that others have suggested that I rejected. How this can reasonably be construed as POV pushing escapes me. Please read the relevant text. If I have pushed anything it is that some people in reliable source land have talked about global warming during the 2000s and we should have some coverage of that. Since WMC's group blog, RealClimate has published a bet offer with his name on the byline wagering against global cooling believers, it is reasonable to think that he is aware of global cooling interest. In fact, that very article could go in the 2000s section (or maybe we could have a subsection on bets, there are others). When an editor pretends that an article he wrote in a forum sometimes used as a reliable source simply does not exist and nobody has spoken about global cooling in the past decade, it's destructive and it needs to stop.
Think about it. I'm accused of POV pushing for a section headline consisting of a decade and a section stub tag. Does this strike you as normal? TMLutas (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit bored with saying I'm not a member of RC. But maybe if I say it often enough people will listen. RC didn't get any replies to the bet, so I think it rather disproves your contention. You're accused of POV pushing for the text you've repeatedly tried to put into that section. Putting in an empty section with no clue as to what text you might add (or so you now seem to be claiming) is merely pointless and provocative William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
TMLutas, the other editors at Global cooling seem to think that your proposals do not deal with the topic of the article, and the current hatnote indicates that material well outside the mid-20th century would be off topic. On another hand, the More recent section already deals with a quarter century of aftermath, so there is an argument for continuing to build on that structure. Much as it pains me to admit that publication in PRL does not automatically convey relevance and truth, the cosmic ray paper appears to be a non-starter. The current examples are nuclear winter or some other event throwing globally relevant quantities of dust into the air, and a DoD commissioned study (as opposed to just funded); I believe that the argument being made is that these concerns have received significantly more independent coverage than Lu (2009). Have you tried Global warming controversy? The other point you make, that 1998 was exceptionally warm, seems to come up only in political rather than scientific contexts. Politics of global warming does not quite look like a fit, but Instrumental temperature record might be a good place to check. Disclaimer: I have by no means read all of our climate change articles, I am just guessing from Template:Global warming.
I am sure you had only the best of intentions in creating the contentless section in the spirit of collaboratively encouraging other editors to expand the article, but can you see how other editors at that page might view it as disruptive? One of the weaknesses of a volunteer project is that we all choose where to direct our efforts (although if anyone starts arguing British Isles terminology in a climate change article, my head may explode); trying to require that other editors work on improving a particular section is completely inappropriate. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
If you feel that the global cooling page is appropriate only for the 1970s scare a priori than of course the more current global cooling content does not fit on the 1970s scare page. It does, however, fit someplace, perhaps as its own page. Do you have any suggestions for a title, perhaps to go into the article incubator so we don't get into the nonsense of the speedy delete garbage that sometimes plagues new articles? TMLutas (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Replied at your talk. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Can you tell him to take it to talk? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I protected the page on The Wrong Version and found the WQA. Could you point me to the relevant 1RR restriction, please? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I can only point you to this This. I don't know where the exact page is but MF has been involved long enough to know the restrictions - although he knows that if he reaches 4RR he can get his version protected by you. Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh and you missed the first personal attack on the page Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Now is your chance to reinstate his personal attack Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Admin Canterbury Tail is very familiar with the whole British Isles debate and should be firt point of call. BigDunc 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
He became "Involved" long ago. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point - the first post was not as over the top as yours and contained some productive material, but the tone was certainly combative. The regular editors at that page can work out their preferred terminology, or the Specific Examples page can. I have requested clarification on 1RR from Black Kite. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Black kite has retired, his last edit was this BigDunc 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Bah, humbug; thank you for pointing that out. Does anyone else have links to specific sanctions that might be in force on these articles? I will need to consider whether further action is warranted and whether I can devote the time to do so. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have asked HK Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not worth the effort. I don't think there's a 1RR anywhere apart from British Isles. BK is one of an increasing number of editors who have been ground down by the BI issue to the point of retirement. Mister Flash (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
BK was ground down by other Admins enabling disruption Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles article has a 1RR placed on it due to edit warring but this could also be dealt with under The Troubles arbcom. BigDunc 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as my two cents. Only the British Isles article itself is under 1RR. There have been discussions about restrictions, MOSs etc for British Isles on other articles, but no consensus has ever been gained. So with regards to BI, it's only the article itself, everything else is open to normal Wikipedia rules unless it's covered by another restriction or policy such as The Troubles etc. I'd like to see some other restrictions around it, or a proper agreed upon usage guide, to stop this constant edit warring with the usual suspects on both sides, but frankly I can't be bothered anymore. It's like re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic, but people keep adding more chairs.
However at the risk of sounding unpopular, HighKing's edit to the article was incorrect. He replaced British Isles with Home Nations which was completely wrong. Home Nations does not include Ireland, and a player from Ireland (state not island) had won it previously. Whether the British Isles should have been in there in the first place or not is a different matter. Canterbury Tail talk 02:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear. The edit was discussed in advance here. A place that Mister Flash well knows about. If he didn't agree with the edit, there's no excuse for edit warring like he continues to do. His editing and attitude is disrputive, and his edit summaries and editing are full of unfounded allegations and in breach of WP:CIVIL. It's an interesting experiment to watch a British editor be allowed behave in this way, with no sanctions of any kind. I wonder how long I, or any other Irish editor, would be allowed to behave in this manner? Double standards, stinks like hell. --HighKing (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, didn't realise it had been discussed elsewhere. And if MF knew of that discussion and consensus, well then he's edit warring and editing against it. I still think Home Nations is incorrect, and in fact nothing should be put in there at all. British Isles just smacks of trying to put it in for no reason.
I've warning him over that, and if there is consensus we can lift the protection and revert to HighKing's edit which has the community consensus as shown. Canterbury Tail talk 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I took care of the unprotection and reversion to the version preferred by consensus there. As I do not recall ever seeing a formal definition of either of these terms prior to seeing the edit wars here, I would appreciate if someone would check what I left. HighKing and others - in future when making edits based on a consensus elsewhere than the talkpage of the article you are editing (and sometimes even then), it can be helpful to link to the relevant discussion or mention it at the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, thank you for your reply. My tentacles are a bit full of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation right now (see e.g. about two thirds of the threads on this page) ... but roving around and reverting each other, which these editors seem to be enjoying, is disruptive and completely at odds with the aims of the project. Hey TPWs - free unblock for anyone who can work out a solution short of ArbCom. Okay, I cannot actually do that, but seriously - you would have my gratitude. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)The original notice was placed on various editors Talk pages - the version posted on my Talk page was here as a result of mass reverting being done by a number of editors: See this revision of BlackKites Talk page. He posted the message at:

  • 20:02, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:MidnightBlueMan ‎ (→Bold, Revert, Discuss: rp)
  • 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Vintagekits ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
  • 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Jeni ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
  • 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Tfz ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
  • 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:BritishWatcher ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
  • 19:55, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Canterbury Tail ‎ (→BRD warnings: tweak)
  • 19:55, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Canterbury Tail ‎ (→BRD warnings: new section)
  • 19:52, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:TharkunColl ‎ (→Bold, Revert, Discuss: new section)
  • 19:51, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:HighKing ‎ (→Bold, Revert, Discuss: new section)
  • 19:51, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:MidnightBlueMan ‎ (BRD warning)

And this warning was posted to Mister Flash (still visible on his Talk page) as well as others:

  • 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:GoodDay ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
  • 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
  • 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Þjóðólfr ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
  • 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:HighKing ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
  • 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:MidnightBlueMan ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
  • 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:LevenBoy ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
  • 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Mister Flash ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)

How many warnings do you think Mister Flash needs? --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of editor

Do you agree with my comments here: [40] --BozMo talk 10:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your comments here and here, but the other editor stirs neither my memory nor my log, so I will need to check. TS notified them of the probation. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, there it is - they were edit warring some email material at the beginning of December, and then again last week. Hrm. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement

Things are starting to back up at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Needs some uninvolved admin intervention (that's you!) rather than the usual suspects bickering William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started but would like some second opinions. --BozMo talk 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Down to one where I need a second and one where I am still considering. One of the new cases I was looking into already, but one of them really surprised me. Some of the other comments there sure do not surprise me, unfortunately. Thanks for the heads up on the surfeit. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have requested intervention to your action at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboardJPatterson (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jpat34721 Topic Ban. Thank you for notifying me. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

By the way, thanks for taking the lead in trying to bring peace to the "climate wars". Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I only do it for the puns - the topic area is heating up, a storm of editing ensues, ice cores from the archives indicate long-intractable disputes, the North Encyclopedia oscillation in where the battlesome editors go, azolla editors are drawing down the issues poisoning the current atmosphere (though hopefully they will not be buried for geologic ages under ice and coal). But seriously - thank you, I appreciate the social reinforcement. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Azolla event?!! And I thought I had a hard time keeping the duckweed in check on my aquaria... Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I'd like to apologize. In the past 4 hours of not wikipedia, I've cooled down substantially. I shouldn't have lashed out at you - it's not your fault. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No harm done - it is incredibly frustrating to try to hold a discussion, carefully iron out all the points of contention, finally get ready to think about making an edit ... and then somebody who in all likelihood did not even see much less read the discussion waltzes in without consideration for all your hard work. There is a similar problem at Naturopathy where every month or two someone swings through with a heavy revision and no discussion except sometimes an edit summary along the lines of what is all this nonsense? this is totally a legitimate well-respected medical speciality / totally bogus and anyone who tries this stuff deserves to stay sick. I do not comment on as many RfCs as I should for similar reason of worrying about due diligence - I do not want to be the guy who comes in at the end of the discussion to say hey, here is this facile solution I bet none of you ever considered - just get along with each other or whatever. One of the reasons why we have open discussions and humans monitoring the probation is precisely so everyone can present mitigating factors like pointing to an open discussion.
Still, thank you for your consideration - I pretty much volunteered for a certain amount of abuse when I took this on, but I must admit to preferring the encomia to the opprobrium. Also, any ideas you may have for systematically encouraging the creation of good articles are especially welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
With all the negativity going on the two of you remind me that there are adults here that can actually behave like adults. Kudos to both of you! This should be an example of how editors should work out things. Have a wonderful night, I hope tomorrow is better for both of you! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
1. What Crohnie said. 2. Get a Room. --TS 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Climate change probation

Can you point to any of my contributions to these articles that were potentially disruptive, or were you sending me the notice to remind me that the articles were under probation? I was a frequent editor of climate change topics, and I edit these articles occasionally. However, there currently appears to be a climate shift underway, so I am attempting to update articles, but only when I have the required sources. However, if you can provide me with a brief but deeper background on the dispute and what led up to the probation, please do so. If any of my specific edits concern you, please point to them using diffs. I am not involved in the climate change dispute, and will make my additions as NPOV as possible. However, this does not justify maintaining the status quo on all relavent articles, as this is a broad topic. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The couple of your edits that I checked before leaving the templated notice of probation looked productive to me - thank you. I left the message with the sole intent of letting everyone know that tempers are running a bit hot in the topic area of climate change, with no implication of wrongdoing on your part; my apologies for the redundant notice if you were already aware. I am afraid that the discussion leading to the community decision to impose sanctions is far from brief, but it is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. The short version, as I understand it, is that a combination of interminable intractable disputes (almost daily AN/I threads, four or five open requests for comment, the same editors having much the same arguments about different climate change related articles at all of the content noticeboards, and almost an ArbCom case), years of incessant sock puppetry, and the media attention on the topic from COP15 and Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (or whatever that article is titled this week) all added up to lead the community to try Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Please feel free to copy this to your talkpage if you would like, and any suggestions you may have regarding the wording of the notification template would be welcome. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More on the revert issue

I tried out the new process and there's still a problem. On the edit notice we link to Help:Reverting which contains yet another, even more benign definition of revert, and not Wikipedia:Reverting which contains the new language. I suggest we change the link or (add the plain text). Helping edititors to revert is probably not what was intended in this context :>) JPatterson (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Free reverts for all! Any editor who does not revert an article at least three times in a given day may be blocked from editing!
Er, sorry, I do not know what came over me there. I suggested over at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning that the WP:Edit warring#Reverting might be the best place to point that, but so far the only change I have made is to point to the probation page itself instead of the talk. I would like to wait to see if other editors would like to weigh in on that discussion before changing it - tomorrow should be soon enough. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I added in whole or in part to the introduction of Help:Reverting - thank you for pointing this out. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments invited

I have indef blocked a user that you previously sanctioned. Could you review the block and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block_review_of_User:Jpat34721? Thank you very much. I respect your opinion and neutrality. If you think the block should be refactored, or undone with conditions, or just undone, feel free to take whatever steps you feel are proper. Jehochman Brrr 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that was a bit of an amazing furor while I was away. I think the net result is good - I am not ready to give up on the productive potential of this editor despite some of their more ill-advised posts of late. I will try to leave some more detailed advice over there before the block expires. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about filing request

Hey 2/0. I was wondering whether there was any reason for one not to file requests for sanctions against users who recently filed requests for sanctions against oneself (sorry, I couldn't really figure out another way to phrase that). I'm mainly curious what WP policy has to say but if there's a common sense reason not to as well I'd love to hear it. E.g., I don't want it to be thought that I'm retaliating, as that isn't/wouldn't be the case. Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as you carefully document your case, specifying the behaviour you find problematic and the steps you or others have taken to discuss the matter, there should be no reason not to. Frivolous countersuits and vexatious litigation are definitely frowned upon, of course, but requesting enforcement is not a free pass for one's own actions. It is standard practice to look at the behaviour of the filing editor, same as at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but, well, complex issues can be difficult to tease out after the fact and may be missed. I was just chatting with Hipocrite here with some thoughts on decreasing the percentage of those reports that are actionable, if you would like to read some of my further thoughts on filing probation requests. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Are steps supposed to be taken to discuss the matter prior? I wasn't contacted by Hip prior to his request... I imagine you must mean discussion of some other kind?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Best practice, in my opinion, includes negotiating in good faith at the talkpage, informally discussing a perceived problem at usertalk, and a more formal specific warning before bringing an enforcement request. Some people dislike it when certain other people post to their talkpage, in which case making such a post is decidedly not part of dispute resolution. The only step that is absolutely necessary, though, is the first one - WP:GS/CC/RE is not a content board. How the case is received depends very much on how much you can demonstrate that the party against whom sanctions are requested should have known better or whatever the particulars of the case. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Picky point

Re Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Jpat34721 On the one hand, I suspect that Jpat34721 will be pleasantly surprised to see his banning period is over, and perhaps he'll marvel at how fast time flies. On the other hand, you may have meant 2010-02-13. Frankly, I haven't finished my 2009 MBO's, so I wish it were still 2009, but I don't always get my wishes.--SPhilbrickT 00:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

/embarrassed Ah well, it is good to know that somebody reads those things - thanks. At least at less than two weeks into the new year I can claim habit instead of plain ol' not knowing what year it is. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
That's funny, because to be quite honest, half the reason I posted was to show that someone is actually reading.--SPhilbrickT 18:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A question on my article ban

Am I allowed to engage with users on their TPs regarding the article in question? Thanks,JPatterson (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The idea of a partial rather than site ban is that a user can probably be a productive contributor to the encyclopedia, but needs to disengage from a particular area. Using various usertalk pages as a proxy for Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident would not serve that purpose. If a user approaches you with a specific limited question, it is probably okay (though less than ideal) to render an answer including reference to this temporary ban; users who repeatedly make such approaches after being informed of the ban might be engaged in baiting, attempting to game the system, or otherwise editing disruptively. Thank you for seeking clarification. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
ok, thanks JPatterson (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's chat for a second about Sirwells (talk · contribs)

You templated Sirwells (talk · contribs) with the climate change template - his only edit of the year - wait, sorry, year and a half - was to revert the lead of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident to remove the sourced information about the response of the mainstream to the emails.

Now, I could revert him - but wait, I can't, because I wasted my revert, and yes, I'm talking about it as an entitlement, on a driveby lead reverter from yesterday. I guess I could pull out my iphone, walk down to starbucks, create a whole bunch of accounts, and play the same game that the denialists are playing - that would probably work. I mean, every new participant gets one free revert, right? Wait, I know, I'm supposed to engage him on the talk page. Here, I'll write something on the talk page. It'll get responded to by the usual suspects, but Sirwells? He's in the wind. We'll get another reverter tommorow - I guess I should respond to him on the talk page!

I suggest that this attempt at probation has failed. All edits that are by editors who did not discuss them on the talk page prior should be revertable on sight without penalty. If the editors are discussing their edits on the talk page, not reaching consensus, and making the edits anyway, sure, I'll jump through the stupid probation hoops. I don't know why I need to waste my time on driveby SPAs, however. Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That could have been put less confrontationally, and I wish you had, but the substance is correct. SW's history is:
  1. 2010-01-12T06:50:45 (hist | diff | all) Climatic Research Unit hacking incident ‎ (missing citations, vague, violates npovWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC))
  2. 2008-06-09T02:14:19 (hist | diff | all) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→3RR concern)
  3. 2008-06-08T23:05:18 (hist | diff | all) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→3RR concern)
  4. 2008-06-08T23:02:00 (hist | diff | all) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→3RR concern)
so this is someone who has been called in from outside to revert. I *don't* agree that the probabtion has failed, though it could be tweaked to be better. Allowing people to revert driveby SPA's, as H puts it, seems fair. Would need a clear edit comment (a la "claim BLP exemption to 3RR") and a clear defn of driveby. Is it needed? Not sure. I would be nice to have, but the obvious suspects will whinge William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries on the tone - I understood from User talk:Hipocrite#Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and my good friend Captain Obvious that there is a great deal of frustration associated with trying to build and maintain a quality article in this kind of environment. One revert per editor per day is easy to enforce and a simple modification of existing editing standards, but is even more prone to the same sorts of gaming as 3RR. Providing a perverse incentive to create socks or collude rather than collaborate is definitely a problem. It also creates an artificially sharp distinction between the cases where two undiscussed drive-by editors choose to contribute within minutes of each other as opposed to hours apart - reverting two edits at the same time as edit-edit-revert-revert only counts as one revert, but edit-revert-edit-revert counts as two. Then there is the problem of imbalance of time and effort from the good faith contributors. The system should be designed to make simple maintenance easier than continual disruption (on a somewhat related note, I have been fairly loose in semi-protecting climate change articles that I notice seem to be attracting a lot of socks or blog-recruits, but am bad about remembering to check RFPP - do please feel free to drop in if it looks like an article might need attention). I admit that sometimes in my editing I will revert with only a cursory edit summary, and only bother with the effort of a full explanation on the talkpage if anyone comes back to object; in some ways this pattern is less than ideal, but I do understand the desire to leverage your time effectively.
Personally, I prefer to focus on content rather than editors - let everyone revert any edit for free unless it has been discussed and consensus reached first. This puts a pretty heavy bias on whatever Wrong Version is in place when this is instituted, but most of our articles are pretty good most of the time. Documented obstructionism and negotiating in bad faith to be topic bannable, of course. This has all the usual problems with Consensus and probably encourages polarization, but it at least increases the cost and behavioral detectability of maintaining a sock army (and, you know, might lead to better articles than if all the discussion is via edit summary).
Instituting an exception for "obvious but not vandalism" reverts makes a certain amount of sense, but if we all could agree on a definition of "obvious" WP:Dispute resolution would be a lot less noisy. It misses the spirit of WP:Edit warring, but unfortunately hits the letter. Please keep in mind that this is just my extemporaneous musing on the topic, not policy. In the spirit of brainstorming, would revert any and every edit that is undiscussed, with re-insertion to be considered edit warring be viable? This would be a fairly dramatic departure from the wiki-wiki model, and would require an active buy-in from at least most of the active contributors at a particular article; it also creates a pretty heavy enforcement burden - checking content against the talkpage and every previous revision takes time and effort and is prone to errors.
Better suggestions and pointing out the weak points and instances of failure continue to be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I came here looking to complain to 2over0 for unbalanced harrassment on my talk page and I find this. Guys, I haven't made a single edit on any article in over a week. I AM NOT A SOCK OR MEAT PUPPET. I know you may not like my talk page contributions, but frankly that should not be my problem. I tell it the way I see it and my posts are intended to address the active discussion, and to try and bring balance to what is obviously a one-sided forum. We all know it's the RC'ers and alarmists who have control of wikipedia. My suggestion to all of you is: find a more constructive use of your time than to make personal vendetta against me. I'm a short-timer here anyways. Sirwells (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if by word or implication I have given the impression that I think you are a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. My interest in those articles extends solely to encouraging collegial discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology (2)

I wanted to apologize for my implication in my article ban appeal that you acted in bad faith. At the time, my confusion regarding what constitutes a revert lead me to feel like I was in a kangaroo court. I now realize there was know way for you to know about my misunderstanding and that you were just doing your job.

Thanks again for your help in getting the revert issues worked out. Regards.

JPatterson (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Echoing the sentiments of a few threads up in another section of the same name, I would need to be quite oblivious not to expect a certain amount of backlash from trying to tamp down the present storm, but I certainly appreciate your consideration. I can see how, if you had not seen me around the rest of the topic area, WMC's post might be misconstrued as calling in a friendly administrator instead of just one who is already up to speed on the probation but had been slacking at the WP:GS/CC/RE board.
I think that you really hurt your public image in terms of being perceived as here to build an encyclopedia with the nature of your appeal (though the appeal itself is, of course, perfectly agreeable - consistency across the project concerning what constitutes editing and adminning norms is important for long-term stability) and CoI thread (discussed elsewhere, so I will confine myself to expressing mild surprise at how long that thread went on, especially after the previous thread citing the same opinion piece was linked).
I recognize that you were engaged at the talkpage, as I expect did BozMo, which was part of the consideration that an article ban for one month would be more productive than a topic ban or a block. Reading the last week and a half of your contributions, you seemed to be arguing tendentiously. Obviously I am not privy to any of your actual motivations, and there a few significant instances outside the pattern, but taken as a whole that is how it appeared to someone outside of the discussions. I cannot speak for the other participants in the enforcement discussion, but personally I barely considered the issue of 1RR - strict enforcement of a technical violation in the pursuit of a stable compromise is not always the best approach. For example, WMC slipped up himself yesterday (see here); I probably would have blocked him briefly if I had been active at the time, but self-reverting is a much better solution in terms of creating quality articles and promoting a collaborative atmosphere. I will also state that I consider the unblocking bar to be pretty low in such cases; it is an entirely different matter, of course, if future edits do not show an earnest attempt at greater care.
Your attention in harmonizing the policy, guideline, and essay pages is particularly welcome. I am not sure that I had more than glanced at any of those pages except WP:Edit warring (which reminds me - I hope WP:AN3 is not getting backed up while I am distracted over here). The term revert is being used in its usual sense, but it is still something of a term of art and should be well-defined.
Topic areas subject to significant debate outside of Wikipedia are something of a conundrum for the continued growth of the encyclopedia. They are among the most likely to attract new editors to leap the first-contribution hurdle (the other being popular television shows and other media; somewhat tongue-in-cheek, WP:OVERLINKING should not apply to WP:FICT and WP:MOSFICT), but among the worst places to start in terms of acclimating to encyclopedic writing and the steepness of the expected learning curve. The rampant sock puppetry in such areas (read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles if you have time on your hands and would like another example) does nothing to foster the collaborative and welcoming environment we would prefer to prevail everywhere and especially to present to new contributors. I genuinely hope that you expand your editing interests, as indeed you seem to be doing, so that you can experience the more positive aspects of encyclopedia-building. The joy of reading a well-written comprehensive article and being able to say I had a hand in that is what keeps me, and I suspect most of us, coming back year after year. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. Lots of good advice. I really do want to be constructive player here. I take from above that the reason my sanction was so much more severe than the others that day was because of the additional charge of tendentious editing. If by that you mean article editing (as opposed to the talk page), my error, I think, was in applying WP:BRD in a context where evidently it is inappropriate. Perhaps it would be wise to place some discussion of WP:Bold and WP:BRD in the context of an article on probation on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation.
I don't have a good feel yet for the role admins play in refereeing disputes as part of the probation process but you wrote somewhere that one of your roles is to "restore a normal editing environment" in the climate change space. In that regard, I wonder if I might get your feedback on this exchange which led up to the incident in question. Assuming you agree with my theme which runs throughout my Talk:Climategate interactions, that we're here to chronicle the controversy, not pass judgment on which side is right (and if you don't please set me straight), I'd like some feedback on the process to follow in the future when faced with this kind of intransigence. I also have some thoughts on article probation in general here that you might be interested in. Thanks again for taking the time with this. JPatterson (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much, although arguably the block on Dcowboys3109 (talk · contribs) was the more severe sanction, as your contributions outside of that article are still welcome (and good from my brief glance at them the other day - rock on), while theirs got a big ol' no thanks for a day (the standard block length for minor edit warring blocks). Editing confined to the talkpage can still be disruptive, and is generally taken into consideration in topic ban discussions.
On most articles, BRD is a good compromise for promoting article development without getting bogged down at the talkpage while still moving to the discussion phase before the battle lines are drawn. Most people, I think, have far more nuanced positions and well developed thoughts on the issues they edit than might be apparent from their edits in hotly contested areas. On less well trafficked talkpages, it is not uncommon to find comments from months or years ago to which nobody has felt the need to respond - clearly a case where just making the edit and waiting for any comments is the best course for building the article. On heavily monitored articles like many of those within the scope of the probation, however, it can be that there is enough information already on the talkpage to understand who and why will object to a particular edit. It is better in that case just to skip the initial edit in favor of hammering out a consensus that everyone will defend first. The make a change and then edit war over it until somebody gets sanctioned method still seems popular, though, perhaps for its potential to silence the opposition. Bad faith proposals and tactical use of sanctions would, of course, themselves be in gross violation of policy, which is part of why the entire situation is considered at those cases. It is difficult to divine the motive behind a bold edit, but the discussion-first model has the advantage that editing against a clear and obvious consensus is disruptive. The basic advice if you feel a discussion is not proceeding productively is to wait for or seek outside input. Perhaps input from a new perspective will induce one or another participants to change their mind. I cannot overemphasize the importance of clear, concise writing - not only will it minimize misunderstandings, but it also is much more encouraging to potential outside input than ream after ream of discursive or circular discussion and general incivility.
Personally, I consider that my time will yield better results for less effort whenever articles get past a few dozen edits per day (try getting a word in edgewise at 2010 Haiti earthquake). Worse, the rapidly evolving nature of the coverage makes any consensus tenuous and subject to tomorrow's news cycle. All of this, though, is within the normal editing environment. The ultimate goal of the WP:GS/CC/RE page is to make the sanctions redundant for reason of the topic area being full of editors discussing, perhaps vehemently but certainly politely and in good faith, all points of disagreement until everyone is equally (un)happy with the articles. It is when the battle lines are drawn, the clarion horn sounded, the less-impassioned and less-disputatious editors driven off, the WP:POINTs sharpened, and "winning" is measured in steepness of MYPOV instead of NPOV that the community needs to step in with a gentle but firm reminder that this is an encyclopedia. meta:How to win an argument and User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war should be required reading for anyone in my position.
I think pretty much everyone agrees that the raison d'être for articles here is to reflect the reliable sources according to their prominence. The disagreement comes once specifics are in play. Should the focus of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident be the fact that data traveled from their servers to one in Russia in contravention of established procedure? Or should it be what the emails etc. contained? Or is reporting what has been said about the coverage of the incident most encyclopedic? Then people who agree on the grand focus contend with each other that this source or that is unusably biased and involved in one side or another of the controversy, or a particular point is unweightably minor or should be covered only alongside some other point or must (not) be included in the lead.
The evenly dispersed nature of content control is a perennial conundrum. Ling.Nut and Cla68 were discussing some sort of content court of appeals the other day, and might have some more thoughts on that part of your retrospective. That sort of discussion usually goes to the village pump, though understanding what has been said before on similar matters is generally advised.
As an admittedly pedantic aside, I think you mean wikt:aspersion rather than wikt:dispersion, and wikt:exacerbate rather than wikt:exasperate. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's quite a lot to digest. I think the nutshell of the advice I was seeking is contained in "The basic advice if you feel a discussion is not proceeding productively is to wait for or seek outside input." I'm not sure of how one goes about doing that (I guess that was my question) but I'm not sure that in the case of the Climategate article more input is the thing that's needed :>) I hope you are right about universal acceptance of the raison d'être you spoke of above but when a Mom-and-Apple-pie appeal like this one gets the response it did, it does shake one's confidence in that view.
"Should the focus of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident be the fact that data traveled from their servers to one in Russia in contravention of established procedure? Or should it be what the emails etc. contained?"
I guess my answer is yes to both. I thought the idea was to chronicle the controversy. People seem to be trying to apply the same WP:Weight arguments that would be perfectly appropriate in article about the science of AGW into an article that is only peripherally related to the science. Twenty years from now, the scientific issues will be settled. Regardless of who turns out to be right, the hacking incident will remain an interesting historical footnote which perhaps will have had a profound effect on politics and policy. I want WP to accurately reflect the history ans it's the history we miss if we pretend that the only one qualified to speak to the issues raised are those sympathetic to the implicated scientists or worse, the blatant POV-pushing view that was expressed in the exchange I pointed you to, that the role of an editor, and by implication, WP, is to prevent skeptics from turning a molehill into a mountain. The outside world will decide if its a mountain or a molehill, our job it seems to me, is to frame the debate and chronicle its effects with encyclopedic tone instead of the current disjoint cascade of he saids/she saids that too often characterizes WP articles on current events. JPatterson (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I meant the comments above as a generic commentary on some of the hurdles that have to be gotten over when writing about current events and not to veer into prohibited territory. But then again, you brought it up ;>) JPatterson (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I suppose I was talking about the cesspit that shall not be named a bit, there. On the other hand, I am relatively confident that you have not been using this discussion in a subtle bid to try to influence me to edit that article on your behalf. Call it a hunch.
Outside input can come from editors involved at the article but not in a particular discussion. Too often I see a back-and-forth from two editors run in the span of a scant few hours the gamut from a polite request for clarification to little better than a flameware. This quick progression limits the chances for other editors to weigh in before intransigence sets in. Taking the time to consider each post, perhaps waiting a few hours or a day if tempers are running hot, increases the signal-to-noise ratio of a talkpage.
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has some good general advice, as well as laying out where and how to attract fresh input. Every step requires time and patience, though, both of which tend to be in short supply on hotly contested evolving topics. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight's block statement

In your block statement there is a mistake that you should correct. Diff #3 needlessly inflaming an already passionate discussion doesn't go to an edit made by GoRight , but to an edit made by some other guy. I looked at the history and GoRight has never edited that article nor its talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

From 2006, probably indicating I dropped a digit in the copy/paste. Thank you for noticing, I will dig out the correct one soonest. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight would like you to know

GoRight asked if someone would alert you to this conversation. I told him I would. It's all yours, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have been following along at home while trying not to add to the noise of that discussion, but I think something more from me is required there in the near future. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

procedural Question

Hi 2/0, I'd like to get out of jail re the CRU hacking incident article. Could you point me to the proper forum for initiating a review? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would, I believe, be the best venue. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Remedy has a link for a handy template that may help in formatting the discussion. I would advise waiting a few days before opening the discussion so you can point to a solid week of uninterrupted productive contributions to other areas. This is by no means required, it is merely my personal opinion that that will bolster your case. I would also advise pointing to the original WP:GS/CC/RE discussion, the first ban review, and any related discussions - somebody will bring them up fairly soon anyway, and doing it yourself gives you the best chance to state your views on the concerns raised therein. Our discussion on the precise meaning of the term revert is also a mitigating factor, though somewhat tangential to the final decision. I am honestly not sure right now what would be best for the project, but good luck anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was thinking it had been a week but I miscounted. I'll take your advice. I'm busy with other stuff anyway. JPatterson (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it violate policy if we handled this quietly here? I am anxious to get all this behind me but it seems the last thing the community needs right now is another forum to play out the us v. them meme. I have absolutely no desire be a foil in that fight (a pox on both houses as far as I'm concerned). This experience has given me a better idea of what's expected in this new environment and I am confident I can contribute in a constructive manner. I propose the rest of my "sentence" be converted to probation, revocable by you at your whim. JPatterson (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think so, but I have asked BozMo for advice. Moni3 wrote up some advice for editing the article covering the recent earthquake in Haiti (linked from the first Signpost article at the top of this page), some of which also applies to other emerging stories, paralleling some of your own concerns. I definitely am interested in not stirring up more drama, but I also want to be careful not to ignore the original community discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
In mulling this over, I would ask both of you to consider, given the reception I received here upon my return to editing after a three year break and the battle mentality on display by both sides (diffs upon request), that my conclusion that this was the behavioral norm was reasonable. I realize now that I entered the fray at an inopportune time, shortly after this probation thing was put into place and admins were trying to restore order. It was not my intention to exacerbated the situation, nor is it my intention to jump back into the fire. My interest remains in creating an article that reflects the controversy accurately, but I intend to concentrate on the social, political and policy impacts that have occurred, subject matter that should not be nearly as controversial. JPatterson (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere or should I just go ahead with a community appeal? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me ponder this a bit more, please, as it is a bit of a thorny issue. You should have a right to a timely reply, though, so please feel free to make your appeal to AN/I if I have not responded in the next 12 hours or so. For the direction my thoughts are currently trending - how would you feel about being unbanned from the talkpage only? - 2/0 (cont.) 09:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning re your half-a-loaf offer or how it would work. I'm interested in improving the article, would I be allowed to suggest content on the TP that then would have to be implemented by someone else or not allowed to make content suggestions at all? JPatterson (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You know better than anyone the mitigating circumstances surrounding all this, knowledge you didn't have at the time you passed judgment. If you can honestly say you'd impose the same sanction today knowing all that, fine, I'll just have to scratch my head and move on. If not, you can fix it. Since I understand certainty is impossible, I repeat my offer that you can reimpose the original sanction at your whim and without a whimper from me. JPatterson (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Complete and unfettered ability to edit anything and everything except Climatic Research Unit hacking incident itself - what say you? The expiry for that would remain at the day before the anniversary of the Saint Valentine's Day massacre. The edits to the article should already have a strong consensus before anyone edits the article, so this restriction should not be particularly onerous. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd take it with the understanding that charges of tag teaming or meat puppetry would be inappropriate in this context as I would only be able to affect content via proxy. JPatterson (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Um, that is not really how it works - you would be a voice at the talkpage, same as any other, free to participate in collaborative discussion. If there is a consensus at a particular discussion, it should not matter who makes the actual edit and the question of proxying for a banned user should not even arise. If there is not a consensus, then nobody should be editing the article anyway, and again the question should not arise. Please, please do not think of this as going back into battle. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstand my remarks. If I intended to go "back into battle", my proposal to give you a hair trigger would have been pretty stupid, no? I intend to avoid antagonism like the plague. My concern is about a few editors there who seem more than ready to pounce on anyone they perceive as standing in the way of Truth, and who have shown themselves more than willing to use the clubs probation has put in their hands. I can imagine a scenario where content I suggest gets inserted by someone else after consensus, and then a RfE gets filed on the technicality that I am acting through a proxy. Just because I'm parnoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get me :>) JPatterson (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that makes much more sense and is much better in accord with the impression I had formed of you from these discussions - thank you. The hair trigger pretty much has to be there in any case, but I do appreciate your transparency, as well as your stated intentions. I am going to go ahead and lift the talkpage ban, then - good luck. I left a note on your talkpage to that effect. You are free to do whatsoever you please with it, but it might be nice to have some sort of pointer to the unban for the next little while, as I do not know how many of the active editors there are aware of this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration here. I am happy we could find accommodation. Please feel free to offer constructive criticism as I try and tip toe through the mine field. Cheers. JPatterson (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Words of wisdom from the King

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
~ Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have a dream, that someday all editors will be judged by the character of their content and not the color of their state. (or something like that). JPatterson (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello - if you're like me, you've often been frustrated that Special:LinkSearch doesn't have a facility to restrict an external-link search to a specific namespace. (After all, we usually care most about links in articlespace). Like any self-respecting wannabe amateur, I've hacked together some Javascript to address this lack. I thought you might be interested. If so, you can go to User:2over0/monobook.js and add the line importScript('User:MastCell/el-namespace.js'); there.

After you refresh your browser cache, the next time you go to Special:LinkSearch you should see a drop-down menu where you can specify the namespace you want to search. Technically, the script intercepts your click on the "Search" button and sends an AJAX query to the MediaWiki API. I've set it up to display the results in the familiar format. There are still a few kinks to be ironed out, but it works well for me so far. Anyhow, if you're interested, give it a shot and let me know how it works for you. MastCell Talk 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes - thank you! - 2/0 (cont.) 06:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me know if you have any problems with it. It needs a little cleanup, but I think the only major issue remaining is that the internal wikilinks in the results table don't work right if you're on the secure site.

My next project is more ambitious. Have you ever noticed that there are a few people who add very little substance to discussions, but who are irritatingly difficult to ignore? The idea would be that you have an "ignore list" in some central location. Each time you load a discussion page, a piece of Javascript runs the content and collapses, shrinks, disemvowels, or completely removes any comments from the offending editors, thus enabling you to focus on content issues without irritating distractions. Unfortunately, it's hard (for me, at least) to come up with a functional, elegant, efficient algorithm to remove comments from a specific editor that will robustly handle edge cases (poor indentation, breaking up others' comments, etc). But a person can dream... MastCell Talk 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaving the issue of 'is it a good idea' aside, one way could be to leverage the ability to see exactly what edits the user has done on the page in question. Unomi (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It's like the atomic bomb - let's develop the technology first, then worry about whether it's a good idea. :P I can pull edits in diff form, but that doesn't work so well since later edits can overwrite or alter them, in part or full. I haven't looked in detail - are there existing tools that can reliably identify a specific editor's contributions to a given revision of a page? MastCell Talk 19:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight requests a response

Please be aware that GoRight wishes to draw your attention to his responses at [41] and he awaits your reply. Thanks. --ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC) (On behalf of GoRight.)

Hi, can you help me simply see (or point) to what your would like to GoRight to agree to, so as to remove his block and proceed? I may be able to help you obtain a resolution. My request was prompted by his [42] here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have not offered unblock terms to GoRight at present, but I am considering the several they have proposed. Civility parole, partial or total restriction from editing climate change articles and talkpages, dispute resolution limitations, and finding a mentor are churning to the top of my mind at the moment. I am not aware of civility parole ever working or failing to incite drama, no matter the intentions of all involved. I am uncomfortable with any dispute resolution restriction that could be used to stifle legitimate review. Mentorship is generally more useful to newer editors learning the ropes and wanting to integrate better with the community; it also must be completely voluntary on all sides. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. As I have discussed with GoRight, I feel the issues that have held him up are really about his intentions and possibly misunderstandings about them. I hope you agree he has talents that could be put to better application, if they were properly focused with a sense of purpose as direction and the feeling that wikipedia life can be meaningful beyond disputes. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling fix

Thanks for the spelling fix ... apologize I didn't catch it. I've had my deal of typo / transpose trouble today. Likely means I should be doing something else more important. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it is simple enough and I was entertained by the mental image of a talkpage with sprawling estates. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That must be it! ... I just returned from touring the 67 acre manors at Cà_d'Zan and Florida real estate shopping. Be thankful I didn't slip and include the circus images. Cà_d'Zan is impressive. (smile) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Beautiful country down there; I was not familiar with Cà d'Zan, but reading and looking at that article it certainly seems I should be. Be sure to check out the Florida Aquarium north a bit in Tampa next time you are in the area - it is worth spending the day. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Will do, the best fish sights this time were at Epcot Center and flying a Waco bi-plane over the reef near Marathon in the Keys. Amazing ecosystems. Just learned the Gulf may have been created by an astroid. I bring this up to disclose my belief that an asteroid impact is a greater threat to climate change than human induced causes. Also note, John Ringling suffered nearly a complete great economic depression loss, after building that wonderful estate.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wassup here?

I've been tweaking and rejigging discussions for quite a while on Wikipedia, and now I'm encountering quite a lot of flack because my attempts to stop discussions becoming straw polls are described as disruptive. Obviously I'm going to stop because it's annoying some people. But a thoughtful comment or two would be appreciated. The comments on my user talk page in the section "WT:PROD" and the one that follows ("Re: Why I removed the bolding") are from completely different people with no conceivable connection so obviously I'm doing something seriously controversial. My aim is to stop discussions turning into ugly, divisive, up-down votes, but obviously there has to be a better way than this. --TS 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Growing pains? As the Wikipedia editor base expands, the proportion who have been around for as long as you have gradually diminishes and the community norms get an Eternal September effect. The pace at which discussions become unmanageably long remains static even as the number of voices to be heard grows. Personally, I think it can be useful to make sure everyone is on the same page after a long and complicated discussion, but moving to it too soon can short circuit the consensus-building process. On the other hand, people dislike having their posts modified or moved, so treating the !vote tally as a summary for tl;dr and responding solely to the points raised may be the best option. It might be helpful to encourage through example the convention of putting the rationale first, with the one word summary bolded in the last sentence or so for ease of parsing.
I saw an interesting graphic a few years back attempting to plot the positions of the US public and the US House of Representatives on a one-dimensional left-right spectrum. The plot for the public looked pretty much like two broad Gaussians with maybe a 10—15 point std, peaked at about ±3 points on a scale of 100 (presumably "0" was defined by averaging the data points). The plot for the House showed a deep dip right just most of the citizens were in basic agreement, with the peaks at around ±10, well outside those of the general public, and a much stronger showing percentage wise towards the extreme ends of the spectrum. Binning continuous data too coarsely is bad for NPOV.
As for actually useful advice, well, leading by example is pretty much the end of it - respond to the points raised, incite discussion, and ignore the head-counting. You are pretty good about not just falling in with one of two pre-defined positions and refusing to change your mind, but one thing I would really like to see more of in the climate change disputes is people taking their own side to task when they screw up. Defending a person or position based on anything besides the strength of arguments does the encyclopedia no favors, but also does the proposer no favors by making it socially more difficult for them to state a change of opinion. Ah, well, maybe next week. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, a thoughtful response! Thanks. There's a lot of good thinking there and I'll try to incorporate it into my activities. --TS 19:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

question

With regards to the probation, might i ask if a deletion is the same as a revert if it is the same text being removed? [43] or is this a loophole in the probation? --mark nutley (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a normal edit, and was mentioned on the talkpage. Thank you for bringing this up. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Deletions of text can be difficult. In a sense, *any* deletion of text is automatically a revert, because someone added it sometime. But that would be overly strict. Within the context of 3RR, which this largely follows, a deletion would not be considered a revert if the text removed was sufficiently old - sufficient would vary by article; but if its addition was severeal hundred edits down the history list, or added several years ago, and was not obviously part of the existing revert war, it probably doesn't count as a revert William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I commented here regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CRU Hack Rename Fracas

This Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Article_move completely broke down into name calling and reprehensible behavior by a lot of editors that should know better. I'm not sure how to request an enforcement action on it, but it got really ugly. Ignignot (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dam and blast, I thought there was move protection on that article. Ah well, SarekOfVulcan has corrected my oversight. I will take a look in a bit, thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you've got a spare moment, Wikipedia_talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for_enforcement#Rules of_the_game needs an answer. PS: aren't you pleased? I'm nothing to do with the CRUhi rename disaster area :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes I am. I am closing some of the open reports at the RE page even now - look for it soon. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC refactoring case

Well nobody has screamed the house down over this proposal...yet! I don't know, maybe everybody agrees with you--or maybe they're all too busy playing the finger-pointing game on other parts of the enforcement page. I must say I find this recent slew of filings disappointing. There are some valid issues there but I get the impression it's turned into a game to see who can get sanctions passed against "the other lot." -TS 23:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly I must agree; I do not feel surprise that people are trying to use the RE page to call down the thunder on people with whom they tend to disagree, but there is some degree of disappointment. Still, I pledged in my RfA that I would strive to ensure that my use of the tools would not be the means by which one PoV-warrior wins over another, and I intend to live up to that. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
2/0 I believe closing down this [44] was a mistake, do you not think another admin should have looked it over. Is it possible that you are being overrun with all the CC related issues and have not had enough time to look through it all? --mark nutley (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Color me unsurprised. No complaint against WMC is ever acted upon. He's persistently rude to those he disagrees with, and nothing is ever done. Your close is just another step along that road. UnitAnode 00:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No action means no warning or no, I don't want the abuse my way. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC is getting a warning following the section I did not close. There seems little point to warning him twice in one day, so I closed the one that had somewhat more screaming all around. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, good shout on this one 2/0 [45] Straight back to reverting and removal of text with no consensus. --mark nutley (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jpat34721

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

The ban was lifted. See User talk:Jpat34721#Unbanned from Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of that. I am wondering if 2/0 is watching his problematic return to the talk page. If I though he was still banned, I'd just ask a bunch of people to block him. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean now. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Not yet, but that was next on my due diligence list. I have high hopes for this one, but I am a cautious optimist. Without having reviewed Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident as of this post, the sorts of clashes my crystal ball predicted should be amenable to the polite collaborative discussion at usertalk method. Hopefully. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Go crazy. I'm inches away from filing another enforcement request. I suggest you inform your charge that copy-pasting a huge list of references without any proposal to use those references or any proposal to make any change to the article is disruptive. I suggest you inform your charge that suggesting the same shit he suggested over and over before he was banned, using the same reasoning over and over from before he was banned that has the same chance of garnering acceptance as before he was banned will lead to him being banned again. It's like he's fundamentally incapable of even considering middle ground. It's tremendously frusterating to finally - FINALLY start watching some headway being made on that article just to find that someone is unbanned just to start being the boulder in the middle of the road. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I've left a polite message on Jpat's talk page suggesting that he might want to reconsider his approach. I agree that it seems unconstructive, at the very least, but let's see if he's a one-track-mind editor as well as a single purpose account. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I article-banned Jpat34721 following discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1#Jpat34721. It will probably be tomorrow before I can catch up on sorting through Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, and related issues. If in the meantime you would like to make a specific enforcement request, please use Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
2/0, if you don't mind, would you please elaborate on your reasons for article-banning JPat? I've looked at that section, and there are only two diffs provided as evidence. Neither is abusive. At worst, this was a 2RR, nothing more, yet you article-banned him for a month. Furthermore, that article ban was used as justification for a block when JPat raised a legitimate COI/N request. I realize your ban has been lifted, but as we can see here, others are still using it as justification to take further action against JPat.
So based on my view of the evidence, I believe your article ban was incorrect. If there's evidence I missed, I'll gladly retract that, but if there was no other evidence, then I think you should retract your action, and admit it was a mistake (or, at least, an overreaction). This would serve to "clear JPat's name" so that editors don't try to use this (IMO) ill-advised ban against him, as they have done here.
Note: I do not assume bad faith in any of this. I realize how difficult this task is, and how easy it is to misjudge a situation. But I do believe a mistake was made, and if so, it should be corrected. Thanks. ATren (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
ATren, I appreciate your comments I really do but I don't think it's productive to rake those coals again. 2over0 and I have reached accommodation after much discussion and I really would hate to see him have to expend more time on this. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I understand and respect that, JPat, but I'd still appreciate a response from 2/0, perhaps by email to avoid further on-wiki drama. This ban seemed way over the line, and continues to create drama (see above). I think it's important to get to the bottom of it. 2/0, feel free to contact me via email. ATren (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the original ban appeal, Jpat's contributions especially to Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident had come to my attention when I was looking for hotspots in the probation area. The diffs I reviewed included all contributions in the 1—2 weeks preceding the enforcement request. The pattern of diffs is not recorded, but there is extensive discussion here leading up to the partial unban. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Here's my contribution to Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident thus far. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. I would appreciate feedback on what is problematic with any of these. I don't see anything the least bit antagonistic in my remarks. These responses ([55] [56][57][58]) are in my opinion entirely unwarranted and unnecessarily inflammatory. JPatterson (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely do not know how to resolve the general issue here. Pointing to consensus at earlier talk threads works ordinarily, but the continuing unfolding of that topic and the recklessly disputatious atmosphere of discussion there both contribute to making any consensus particularly tenuous and open to reasonable or disingenuous debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not know how to parse this to mean anything except, there is not now and never was a consensus, which means my post was perfectly legitimate (and if you'll read where the discussion went from there, constructive). A collegial editing environment is going to difficult to achieve as long as some editors think the purpose of probation (win,wink, nod, nod) was to give them new weapons to drive the bastards out.JPatterson (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request you cease action on GW probation

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

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

Isn't this what has been happening all along, though? Attempts to drive out editors by one side or another, and then (as we saw in the GoRight case with his ideas that somebody who had censured him before must be "involved") attempts to drive out administrators who looked like they would try to stop the fun and games? --TS 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, Tony. 2/0 has clearly demonstrated his non-neutrality here. If I cared, I'd pursue it further, but I no longer do. Eventually it will all come out, the years-long POV push that's been going on at these articles with the blessing of non-neutral admins. I'll look forward to that, but I won't be a part of it. ATren (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think he's a saint for even attempting to make some lasting changes in this wasteland. Do you honestly think that punishing one ex-admin is going to improve the articles? I do not - while sometimes a little hasty, WMC's edits are almost always good in the end. The goal of cleanup has to be a movement beyond the usual cliques ganging up on one person after another, talking endlessly past each other about the same things, and pushing everyone who is not in a camp into one. The problem is with editors whose edits are almost always bad in the end. Ignignot (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
That is enough of that, if you please. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The person who has clearly demonstrated non-neutrality in all of this is ATren, with his relentless vendetta William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, only a few hours after being told to be civil WMC is here accusing aTren of a vendetta, real polite boy. mark nutley (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you think we might stop this descending to the usual bickering? For someone claiming to be concerned about politeness, "boy" is inappropriate. As to the vendetta stuff - ATren has accused me of much the same - I don't see you complaining about that. Can you say "one sided"? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
1. I have no vendetta. 2. Please remind me where I accused you of having a vendetta. ATren (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Do i see Atren accusing you here? No, how therefore am i to complain? Has Atren just been asked to be civel? No. The use of Boy is a cultural affection (IE How`s it going boy) and i will use it if i so wish. Accusing me of being one sided when i pointed out that you were being uncivil is just a pointless insult, as it was you my comments were being directed at, not ATren. mark nutley (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't bother, Mark, you'll be accused of harassment. See my graph below, upper right quadrant. ATren (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

  • And now I see that you protected an article [59] with a version that numerous editors have objected to on BLP grounds. Policy indicates that the BLP issues should be resolved FIRST and consensus reached before content that raises BLP issues is restored. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, it was locked because of the edit war over the pic. 2/0 knows it was locked on the wrong version [60] give the guy a break here, he is one of the few admins trying to cover the climate related pages and is overrun. If it was you or me i suspect a lock on the article until the conflict was sorted in talk would have looked like the best option. Lets all try and calm it down a bit, tempers are running high over the latest probation sanction brought against WMC, which i still think was closed prematurely btw :) Hope you don`t mind my butting in ChildofMidnight (is there a short way to do your name btw?) --mark nutley (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is a BLP issue, my understanding is that policy demands that be addressed FIRST, for obvious reasons. And I don't see a consensus for the pic's inclusion based on the talk page discussion so far (I lean towards it being included, but that's not really relevant). You can call me anything you like Mark, as long as it's relatively appropriate. ;) "CoM" is pretty popular. I also think 2over0 needs to explain why clear violations are allowed from one editor while another editor is blocked for nebulous "disruption" accusations. And finally, his claims of "personal involvement" needs to be explained. I am pretty good about trying to avoid interacting with uncivil attackers who want to feud, so it's problematic that 2over0 would launch unsupported attacks on my good faith efforts to get violations of our editing policies addressed by suggesting I'm trying to provoke a conflict. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
The problem with the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley picture is that, while obviously there are better pictures, I take a very conservative view of activating the WP:BLP exception for fear of chilling effects. If another uninvolved admin feels that in this case the potential for harm from that picture is sufficient to warrant removal under the BLP exception, I would not object (please direct them to this post if anyone asks); there are enough good-faith arguments that the picture is policy-compliant that for myself I am not comfortable unilaterally declaring that it is not. You are also free to raise the issue for outside opinions at WP:BLP/N. If you do so, please check the archives for the last time this issue was raised; please also let me know so that I may state the above position.
For an unrelated but similar issue, see Talk:Lawrence Solomon#Environmentalist (2).
Thank you for your understanding, Marknutley. I am trying to self-limit the number of issues I take on, but sometimes a conflict is deceptively complex, and comments elsewhere must wait while I try to tease out the full context. Even so, I would be enormously surprised if there are not still matters of dire importance that I overlook. The WP:GS/CC/RE board helps with that by distributing the diff-searching load, but less so the less focused a discussion becomes. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It's been raised at BLP/N by another editor. MastCell Talk 07:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
A good 49 minutes before I suggested it - wow, this new tachyonic interface is really zippy! Thank you for the note, I have now commented there. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Censure of CoM

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

I reviewed their recent contributions as due diligence before commenting on the report, and considered that some form of request to concentrate on improving the articles without personally engaging with other editors would be warranted. I am certainly open to different wording, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but I think it should be noted that the filing of requests such as CoM's can be a significant contribution to an article in addressing surrounding problematic edits. If these are your grounds for the ["]admonishment["] I'd like to see it removed entirely.
Also, I want to thank you for trying to work through these climate change articles without bias. It seems they're often avoided by admins as too much of a headache. I'm not particularly happy I came across the "climategate" article myself. Consider this a plaintext barnstar? --Heyitspeter (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
New wording - see if you like it. I most certainly do not want to do anything to discourage those reports, both for due process reasons (better there than here or at some other poor sucker's talkpage) and because distributed monitoring just plain works better. Well, as long as people do not try to bludgeon each other with cherry-picked REs, staying just within the enforcement line while baiting their fellow volunteers, and sending every request into yet another death spiral of bickering; ah well, maybe if this can be tamped down to the point where everyone offers the appearance of good faith then some actual collaboration might slip through the cracks. Also - thank you :). - 2/0 (cont.) 06:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I really like the last wording you posed, and second the editor's comments you linked to. It was really frustrating to see the request phrased in that manner and it cheapened the claims being made. That other editors had to add the diffs needed to make the complaint actionable was ridiculous. In any case, see you around. --Heyitspeter (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because anything worth knowing is worth graphing...

The Pritchard Scale.

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

Dear me, I found Dead Poets' Society slash fiction before I got the reference - it has been a deuce of a long time since I saw that movie, and mostly I just remember the book-desecration scene. That is much more elegant than the description I gave at RfA: good-content/bad-conduct editors, bad-content/good-conduct editors, and other complex cases. (On an unrelated note, why have I felt the need to quote that page twice today?)
Adding a third note for a full chord of unrelatedness, I got a drive-by vandal to this page today - these admin perks just keep getting better. To be fair, they might have been following someone else, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Like you need an excuse to read Dead Poets' Society slash fiction. WTF did these folks do before the Internet was invented, anyway? Incidentally, I thought of illustrating the graph with a few representative editors, and went as far as plotting a few of my favorite archetypes before I recognized that the idea would not fly. MastCell Talk 07:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Of the three people I know who have admitted having written slash fiction, two work in bookstores and one in a library - ideal venues for meeting fellow bibliophiles. I wonder more about flamewars - has anyone ever Godwined an OpEd column?
The issue as tabulated by Goofus and Gallant. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, people did used to compare the publishers of the Daily Mail to the Nazis. Then again, the Daily Mail actually was pro-Hitler. I think the immediacy of the Internet is a key component in facilitating flame wars. People argued in print back in the day, but when you have to wait a week or two to see your responses, and your adversary's, published, you probably lose interest and start going outside or talking to your family instead of posting obsessive rebuttals. It would be interesting to see a list of the top ten all-time flame wars. I think Gore Vidal-William F. Buckley would be up there. MastCell Talk 19:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A graph for admins

The ATren Scale for Admins.

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

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

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

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

Boris correct party approved graphing

File:Mondrian Broadway Boogie Woogie.jpg

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

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

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

Does that delineate the intricacies of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing? Stares at it, goes cross-eyed. ;-/ dave souza, talk 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Have I just been outed? Verbal chat 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0/Archive_4&oldid=1147249990"