User talk:ATren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hope you return[edit]

I hope that you return from time to time and that you see this. The Climate articles are unfortunately being tampered with by a very, very dedicated smallish group that I suppose believes they have 'god on their side' and therefore are justified in all they do.

I have recused myself from editing Climate articles because of my strong feelings. That is what the people that bothered you should have done long ago. Unfortunately their views differ from mine on more than just Climate.

Content yourself, as I have, with this: Economically Justified Preventable Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is nonsense on its face. The theory flies in the face of the entirety of the rest of the body of mathematics, science, logic, reason and good old-fashioned common sense. Its adherents profoundly misunderstand so much of that and have a distorted view of ethics to boot. It will collapse on its own. The wait may be long, but cracks are already beginning to appear in what they refer to by the oxymoron 'settled science'.

It has been excruciating to watch the madness of the Global Warming hysteria, particularly the scary perversion of Wikipedia. Still, it will likely be equally delicious watching the opportunistic weasels run for the exits as the last cult-members slowly realize the jig is up.

You are not at all alone. While I was attempting to find a little sanity in the Climategate article I saw what happened to you happen to others time and time again. For someone thinking of taking the plunge:

Read the histories and look for disputes, references to 'denial', slander, half-truths, wiki-lawyering, etc. You will soon enough see who the main players are and there are not all that many of them. Enough to gang up and eject newcomers, but not enough that any sane person thinks they are correct.

The abuse of newcomers follows a few fairly typical patterns. They will approach with condescension and escalate from there. Whether by design or happenstance, they double and triple-team individuals doing variations on good-cop, bad-cop and attempt to lure you into flame-wars. They tie you up in an avalanche of petty disagreements and make it clear that you are an outsider and must take your place in the pecking order. Once they have brought you to a certain level of frustration, they get the name-calling going and then have a buddy jump into the fray to question your behavior as if any neutral party can clearly see that you alone are the problem. Once they have entrapped you into a few petty violations, they get down to business with sanctions and veiled threats of various kinds. Anybody tenacious enough to keep going will ultimately be banned.

From what I can tell of looking at histories, the current Climate Articles reflect a decidedly minority view that is at odds with reality. Were all the editors they chased away to return you would see that *most* people think the Climate articles are badly messed up. They continue to refer to the Climategate whistle-blower as if he is the bad guy. He is not, and anyone who has taken a good look into this will realize that. To his own detriment he went out of his way to *protect* the privacy of the villains in Climategate. He is the good guy. The only actual evidence of wrongdoing that could have been actionable in the courts was done by one of the main people in the Climategate material. He avoided prosecution due to a statute of limitations. All of the Climategate investigations were whitewashes breathtaking in their cynicism.

There is not a lot we can do except wait it out, but I am confident that the wait will be worth it. If nothing else, their whole raison d'etre is that immediate catastrophe is at hand and we must suspend our judgement and act immediately. Immediate catastrophe has been at hand for long enough now that 'immediate' is becoming a ridiculous notion. It might take another ten or fifteen years (I hope not), but eventually people will lose interest and science will return to sanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Be well[edit]

Thanks for the kind note. I hope you decide to return to active editing, and focus on the articles that bring you both happiness and a minimum of stress. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


Has the world gone mad?. You're a rare voice of sanity in a sea of tempest. How those warnings can be deemed uncivil is as clear a demonstration of bias as can be imagined. --Michael C. Price talk 15:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Condolences is a bit strong; I will certainly not be mourning this decision. ;-) In fact, I kind of welcome it, because it's so absurd that I can now clearly see what Wikipedia is really about. Wikipedia is the worst kind of deception, basically a wolf in sheep's clothing -- a political blog masquerading as a "neutral" encyclopedia. Even Conservapedia isn't this bad, because at least they have the integrity to state their biases up front. Wikipedia is just as partisan as Conservapedia but is dishonest about it, portraying itself as the "neutral" alternative -- and when whistleblowers like me point out the elephant in the room, they ban us.
It's a classic case "blame the whistleblower". There are very powerful individuals on this site who want to push their activist agenda, and those powers have allowed this stuff to happen for years with a wink and a nod. But then, when editors like me (and JWB, and Cla68, and M4th, and many others) came along and revealed the ugliness, they were forced to take action to protect their image, and the image of the "neutral encyclopedia". But they weren't about to let the whistleblowers go unscathed. The whistleblower never comes away clean.
So even as I continue to fight this sanction, when it finally comes down, I will place the sanction notice prominently on my user page, kind of like a badge of honor. I was never going to edit CC pages again, I already decided that a while ago, so the sanction is actually meaningless to me in that sense. But it will always be a reminder that I stood up for what was right.
But anyway, thanks for the note of support. :-) ATren (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, amazing how ingrained the shoot the whistleblower mentality is. And we laugh at kings of old for shooting the messenger. Truely nothing new under the sun. --Michael C. Price talk 06:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment on my talk page, I've been wanting to get back to you about that. I don't think keeping the notice, when it comes, on a banner on top of a page is a good idea -- it'll just make you angry about an event you can't change and that isn't constructive. I've been in similar situations to the one you (and I) are in right now, and believe me, it's not worth it to remain angry -- remaining angry often leads you to actions that result in a block, which just creates a vicious cycle. Letting go is practical advice.

I also want to warn you about comments like this, from the P.D. talk page: Carcharoth, Risker, Mailerdiablo, Coren, and especially Roger and Shell -- I am shocked at the lack of integrity they have shown. That comes close to a personal attack (it may well be a definite personal attack). I think if you're not given a warning or block over that statement it'll be because ArbCom members are indulgent with you (they understand it's not fun to be sanctioned), but don't mistake that indulgence with permission to say things like that. My own comments are aggressive but I'm trying to appeal to their sense of fair play and I'm being careful not to attack anybody. (Personally, I don't want to comment on anyone's character, just point out things they've done that their consciences should lead them to reconsider -- that's a lot different from saying they have no integrity, in fact I'm depending on their integrity.) ArbCom members have a tough job and they're certain to make mistakes, sometimes big mistakes. You and I have also made some mistakes in this imbroglio, so we should be sympathetic when others do. I'm worried that your comments will distract from the case I'm trying to make in that thread and others. People who feel they're under attack feel justified in closing their minds to what the people perceived as being attackers want. The provocative title, "Arbcom's integrity" was only meant to show what's at stake and prick their consciences. Remember, we have to try to work together on this project -- that's not a hazy ideal, just a cold, hard fact (and a necessity). If ArbCom members are calm, they're more likely to look into this and improve their ultimate decision. Attack them, and they're less likely to reconsider. Please just redact the comment. Better to remain the victim appealing to reason than come off looking like the victimizer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I took another look at my own statement and redacted parts of it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
JWB, making a mistake is human; not acknowledging that mistake, and then sticking to your guns despite mounting evidence of your wrongheadedness, is fundamentally indicative of a lack of integrity. I call it like I see it. Let them block me for it, because then I will have another piece of evidence of their hypocrisy. Not that I need anymore evidence of that. :-) ATren (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. Thanks for redacting. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I think you look pretty good on that table. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
This is that table. I should have linked to it before. Anyone interested enough in you to be watching your page should know that you were sanctioned for comparatively unimportant behavior -- behavior that would normally not get a sanction, in my opinion. [1] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, JWB. Notice that Shell basically ignored it, as I knew she would. There are certain elements in this conflict (including a few, I believe, on the committee itself) who know exactly what is going on here, but are proceeding anyway with a wink and a nod, because after all, they're trying to save the world! That's the basic problem with an activist mentality at a place like Wikipedia: people think it's OK to twist the truth a little, to apply uneven standards and uneven enforcement, because they think they're doing it for the better good. The ends justify the means and all that. And that's not even a smear on those individuals; it's just human nature -- people are justifiably concerned about climate change and they believe that a little activism in support of a noble cause is good.
The fundamental flaw in this approach, the thing that nobody seems to realize, is that neutrality and trustworthiness of the source is the single most important issue when trying to convey a point of view. No matter how convincing an argument is, I will not trust it if it comes from a source which is not trustworthy. So in effect, these editors, and the admins who support them, have created a situation where Wikipedia is "on message" with respect to this important issue, but their methods and approach have significantly damaged the trustworthiness of Wikipedia as a source, especially with regard to this particular issue. So the net effect is not persuasive, but rather polarizing: those who already agree will come here and say "yes, of course!", but they didn't need persuasion anyway. It is those on the fence who require persuasion, and the absolute worst way to convince them is to come across as partisan to the core!
That's the irony in all this: their efforts to advance their "cause" are actually damaging it, and when people like me come along to try to fix it, we are accused of being partisan ourselves, which of course, increases the polarization!. I've asked myself at times, why am I fighting the inclusion of "dirt" in the BLPs of people I don't even respect? But of course, I know the answer to that: I do it because when Wikipedia allows that crap to happen, it reflects much worse on the project itself than on the BLP. That's the other irony here -- at all times I was acting solely in the interests of the encyclopedia, and in fact, I was editing against my own POV (which wasn't ever really that strong in the first place, but that "side" is surely where my sympathies lied), yet these arbitrators were too wrapped up or too lazy to recognize that. They simply took the word of the partisans at face value. And that's my biggest disappointment here, that even all the way to the top Wikipedia doesn't get what happened here -- or if they do, they ignored it for the "greater good". Very disappointing. ATren (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


If you email Risker one more time I will block you and disable your email account. She's asked you to stop more than once and you haven't. RlevseTalk 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I assure you I have no intention of emailing her any more, ever again. Once again my actions are being misrepresented. ATren (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, for the benefit of my talk page watchers, the emails I sent Risker have NOTHING to do with me or my recent disputes with arbcom over their ridiculous findings. This was regarding an entirely different Wikipedia-related matter, something much more serious. ATren (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't try the same game with me you tried with her. Reread her responses on her talk page. Last warning. RlevseTalk 09:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not a game, Rlevse, these are serious real life issues here, specifically dealing with editor privacy. But fine, I will not contact you again. ATren (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Trying an end run with Jimbo won't work either because you're circulating half truths and rumors. You're on very thin ice here, so stop the forum shopping. If you've got some hard evidence instead of rumors, submit it. Otherwise, let it go. RlevseTalk 12:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading the above thread, I seriously wonder why the fuck I spent so much time here. ATren (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban -- yuk[edit]

Well, I'm sorry you got caught up in this, and boy am I glad I didn't. At least some of the worst actors got iced for awhile.

I appreciate your efforts in the climate-change area, and have enjoyed my few interactions with you. Actually, the climate-change pages are in the best shape since I've been around. Civility and collegiality -- even encyclopedicity -- are breaking out all over. So it's an ill wind....

I hope you remain active in the project. It's an interesting and entertaining hobby, so long as one doesn't take it too seriously. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. The feelings are mutual. I'm actually not sorry about the ban itself (I was ready to exit this area for good) and I take some solace in the fact that the worst elements are removed, but then again it's only temporary. In 6 months it will turn into a mess again, but I really don't care anymore.
I am mainly bitter at the obstinance of some of the arbs. They were all informed of evidence of three things: (1) the absurdity of my finding diffs when taken in context (context which I presented, and they ignored), (2) the fact that at least half a dozen others behaved much worse than me (see JWB's table on the PD talk; he got the same mistreatment as me) and (3) the fact that the committee took no action whatsoever against the admins who let their biases get in the way of enforcement; I presented pretty solid evidence of ridiculously over-the-top behavior by 2/0, TOAT, NuclearWarfare and FPAS, and not only did the arbs ignore it, they were critical of me for merely challenging them. How's that for a slap in the face -- I reveal clear evidence of admin misconduct and they sanction me because I told them to "back off".
That's why I gave myself a "whistleblower's barnstar" - because I still cannot believe how these arbs can look at the evidence I presented against (e.g.) 2/0 and sanction me for questioning him! But you know, in fact, I do know why it happens -- see my response to JWB above about the tendency of well-meaning people to make really bad decisions because they focus too much on the "greater good". They think they're doing what's right, but the net effect is actually the opposite. The fact that this wrongheadedness goes all the way up to the level of arbcom is very disappointing, and it's caused me to lose all respect for the project as a whole.
And frankly, while things may be somewhat calm right now, I have no illusions that this has improved anything, because the admins who helped create this mess are still active. See this section and ask yourself, given his comments on that thread, why NW is still considered "uninvolved" enough to close Tim Ball's BLP as "delete" when it was 14-4 to keep. NW should not be allowed anywhere near a BLP after the way he mishandled the Monckton BLP violations -- and in fact, he's still defending that action [4] in full view of an arb! How can an arb write off NW's handling as a "mistake" when NW is still defending it?! I'll tell you how: because the arb is thinking about the "greater good", not about the project.
But that's the way it is I guess. Wikipedia's wrongheadedness goes all the way to the top. I will not participate much anymore, because honestly this really isn't my thing; I am much better at writing software than articles. :-) And if I'm going to donate my time I'd rather contribute to a worthy open source software project than this place, which, in my view is little more than a political group blog.
OK, rant off. :-) Thanks again for the sentiments, and good luck going forward. ATren (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Man, reading that ArbCom stuff makes my eyes hurt -- that's like going to court, which I had to do not long ago, to oust a bad neighbor who had a trailer parked halfway onto our property. At least you didn't have to hire a lawyer... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice good silver lining, "at least I didn't have to hire a lawyer". ;-) ATren (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't followed the case, but to see editors like yourself, Cla68, and A Quest For Knowledge in this list makes it pretty obvious that ArbCom is a really... blunt instrument. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Endorsed. This is an example of what ATren described in a essay (now missing?): it is the networkers (i.e. the brown-nosers) who get their POVs represented, and the networkers do not always have good science writing skills. Nor do they seem to understand the necessity of due process. --Michael C. Price talk 10:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your kind words. Now that I'm out of that mess I don't miss it one bit. That's the irony of this whole thing: I don't care about the topic, never did, and I only stayed at it so long because I thought the actions of certain editors were a blight to the project. Now that I've been forcibly removed, I feel like a burden has been lifted. It took them topic-banning me for me to realize how messed up Wikipedia is, and I now feel it deserves whatever it gets. It reminds me of that parable told by the old Native American guy in Natural Born Killers:
Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."
In my case, at least it was just a topic ban and not a fatal snake bite. ;-) ATren (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please remove your evidence subpage..[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Evidence_sub-pages_in_user_space, i'm requesting that you remove your evidence subpage (User:ATren/sandbox). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now I trust you will ask others to remove theirs too. This would be a good start. ATren (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you ask yourself? I only noticed yours because you just edited it - and it was on my watchlist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I have voluntarily withdrawn from interacting with WMC (actually I withdrew several months ago, but that hasn't stopped insinuations from the likes of Tony Sidaway). So I will not do it. But since you are the one concerned about enforcing this ruling, now that you know about that subpage, I'm sure you will do what's right. ATren (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
[5]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_12#evidence_page_deletion_requirement ... ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Lar, it appears blanking may not be enough, so would you please delete User:ATren/sandbox? I know there's a template somewhere but I'm in a rush and I can't locate it right now. Thanks. ATren (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Db-u1}} -Atmoz (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted it for you, ATren. Please advise of any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you (both). ATren (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Interaction with WMC[edit]

Re. your comment on the Arbitration requests talk page, and your request for diffs of you interacting with WMC: I wasn't suggesting that you had. I was asking the question of GWH to establish what his thinking was. I have limited knowledge of the current situation with the Climate Change topic area, having ignored it since the Arbitration case began wrapping up. Sorry I didn't reply before the thread got closed. AGK 23:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for responding. ATren (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse retirement[edit]

There was a time I would have lamented his loss, but after the garbage he pulled with me (look up a few sections on this talk page) I certainly will not miss him. Hopefully some of the other arbs behind this atrocious decision will follow suit. ATren (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you've noticed that the Arbcom elections are about to start? Will you be standing? --Michael C. Price talk 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
For election? Not a chance. I'm way too busy at this point of my life to even commit the time to running, but even if I did, I might set a record for the most negative vote tally ever. :-) To win election (or even adminship) you really have to work the system, i.e. reach out to others, make powerful friends, participate heavily and visibly on noticeboards, etc., and I've had never had any interest in doing that. It's like a big MMORPG, and I'm too old and too busy for games. I never even had a desire to be an admin. But it's nice to know that I'd get at least one vote if I ran. :-) ATren (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW Shell has resigned after being outed in the Arbcom emails fiasco. Enjoy! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. :-) ATren (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate change amendment: notification of three motions posted[edit]

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:Activist nominated for deletion[edit]

Climate change case amendment[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:

  • 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
  • 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

— Coren (talk), for the Committee, 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the joys of being involved in an ArbCom case is the endless notifications of requests for clarification. Here's another.[edit]

Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JWB. I saw the thread on NYB, and sadly, I'm not even surprised at this crap anymore. There is not much WMC does that I defend, but I agreed with your defense of him asking questions about the case. JEH's warnings are way over the top, but he's not alone. TS made a huge deal out of nothing a few weeks ago (though he smartly backed away soon after) and I actually got a warning from SA a few days ago for participating in an essay deletion discussion -- an essay that said nothing specific whatsoever about climate change! Apparently, the mere fact that the essay author might have been thinking about CC editors when he wrote the essay disqualifies me from participating in any process relating to it. Ludicrous.
And isn't it strange that some of those who perhaps should have been topic banned, but weren't, have been the most active in stirring up shit since the case ended? At what point do these enforcer editors themselves get topic banned for all these spurious warnings and RFEs over insignificant events? In most cases, these spurious reports and warnings cause much more drama than the events themselves, but we can't even say that because then we're violating our ban -- a ban that was ridiculously unfair and unwarranted in the first place. The warning I received earlier this week was particularly ironic, given what I know about the outing activities of the editor who issued it. It's a joke. ATren (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change[edit]

Here you say "I am getting tired of people like JEH, SA, and TS acting in enforcement roles in all this." I take 'TS' to be a reference to me.

You probably didn't know it at the time, but I've left the field. See this, dated over two weeks ago. This isn't an invitation to further discussion. I'm off the case, and I've been off the case for a while now. --TS 23:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do recall you stating that you'd withdrawn, but then I saw several recent comments in CC-related threads (i.e. [6]) so it wasn't clear whether you'd withdrawn your withdrawal. BTW, in the interest of disclosure, I've joined what you refer to as the "troll forum" too. I guess if Wikipedia treats me like a troll then I should fit right in, right? ATren (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Well my point was that "That has nothing to do with the climate change probation, it's straightforward abuse, and now we know it's happening we'll stop it." That applies to any abuser of Wikipedia (and that was my point). But I won't argue the toss with you. I won't do that again while I'm staying away. --TS 00:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I've added a clarification to my statement indicating you've stepped back, and that my comment only referred to prior actions. ATren (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I just stumbled upon this topic and decided to try and determine for myself whether the arbitration itself has a neutral POV in this case. The reason I am asking this here is because I reviewed the links in "ATren's battlefield conduct" and my reaction to twelve of them was "huh? what disruptive behavior?" and my reaction to two of them was "OK, maybe a marginal case deserving a 'please be civil' comment, but nothing worthy of a block."

That being said, here is my question; of those who were topic banned or agreed to restrictions amounting to a voluntary topic ban, how many were Pro-AGW and how many were AGW skeptics? In your opinion, was this pretty much a ban of disruptive individuals from both sides, or was this a suppression of one POV while leaving the other POV free to edit the pages? I know you were in the middle of all of this, but from reading your past contributions, I believe that you will give me an unbiased count whether or not it supports your POV. Thanks! Guy Macon 00:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Guy, your "Huh?" reaction is shared by a number of observers. Arbcoms Roger Davies and Shell Kinney seem to be the instigators of this unmerited battlefield / incivility claim. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So what's the rough count of Pro-AGW vs. AGW skeptic topic bans? Guy Macon 00:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't ever get blocked, but I did get topic-banned. I was fine with that, but I objected (vociferously) to the battleground finding. I was basically a jaywalker during a street riot, but Shell and Roger were intent on sanctioning me and went digging for dirt against me. Once they put up that horrific finding, the others just rubber-stamped it. That's our arbcom, unfortunately: a few bad apples spoils the whole bunch.
I have every intention of appealing the battleground finding. Even if it takes me 2 years, I'll get my appeal out there. That finding was a travesty, as were a few others.
As far as the rough count, first a little background: there are actually three major sets of opinions here: those who support the science and the agenda, those who support the science but oppose the agenda, and those who oppose both the science and the agenda. In general, the latter two groups were the "skeptics" even though they weren't universally skeptical, and the first group was the "pro" side. So it was not really divided along believer/non-believer lines.
By "agenda", I am referring to the attempts by editors to suppress anything they disagreed with (even reliably sourced) while pushing anything they agreed with (even unreliably sourced). My issue was mainly with the BLPs, where a certain small group of "pro" editors was intent on using Wikipedia to tear down their ideological opponents.
Another complicating factor: during the probationary period which preceded arbcom, the sanctions were weighed towards those on the "skeptic" side (which, as I said, included some neutral or even pro editors who simply opposed the tactics). I don't remember specific numbers offhand, but my vague recollection was that at perhaps close to half a dozen "skeptic" editors were removed during the probation, while none were removed from the "pro" side. So entering arbitration, the playing field was already skewed.
So, with all that background, in the arbcom case itself, I think the sanctions were more-or-less evenly applied between "skeptics" (again, defined as those who opposed the agenda, not necessarily the science) and the "pro" editors. But it was nowhere near fair. JWB was on the "skeptic" side and his sanction was a travesty worse than mine. The findings against AQFK and Cla68 were marginal, and the finding against Lar was absolutely ridiculous.
Then, if you look at the other side, I think you find no such unjust findings. Rather, the "pro" side is notable for who is absent from their list. If you dig through the PD talk page, you will find at least half a dozen "pro" editors who behaved worse than several of us "skeptics", but were inexplicably given a pass by the Shell and Roger. Boris, Stephen Schulz, ScienceApologist, Tony Sidaway, and Guettarda all deserved findings much more than me or JWB (or even Cla or AQFK), but the arbs ignored our pleas. JWB even provided a table to compare our worst vs their worst ([7]), but the arbs would have none of it. You can look at that table and judge for yourself, who should have been sanctioned by the bar they set when they sanctioned me and JWB.
So it's not just a simple answer of how the sanctions were divided. Hopefully this clears it up for you.
If you're interested in pursuing this further, I would suggest you ping the arbs who voted for my finding, and ask them why they voted based on such weak evidence. I contacted them each individually, but they basically either ignored me or quoted the Shell/Roger party line. As I said, it was really Shell and Roger who came up with that ridiculous finding, they were the ones who actively misrepresented my actions and took things out of context. The rest were just lazy (with the notable exception of Newyorkbrad, who smartly abstained). ATren (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not at this point prepared to jump in to this any farther, but if anyone in the future chooses to point out that I, an outsider, looked at the diffs and said "huh?" (see above for details), I will certainly agree and will post once or twice defending my finding. I think it was clearly wrong, but I also don't see it as my battle. Other than that, I am going to take a wait-and-see attitude for a few months. My concern in that the remaining editors have a neutral POV and allow due weight to both sides. So I am going to withdraw from this for now, and will stop monitoring this page in a few days after reading any final replies. Feel free to drop a line on my talk page if anything important happens or if you need me to chime in and tell someone what I did and did not see in the diffs. Thanks! Guy Macon 07:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In my case, most of the evidence against me was 6 months old. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas[edit]

Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth[edit]

I replied to your comments at the MFD again but for what its worth I consider the matter closed and you or someone else can feel free to close the MFD. BTW I know how you feel with regard to the ArbCOM ruling and rogue admin trouble. I recently got blocked for 31 hours for reporting an editor who violated 3RR. I made a joke that since the admins didn't want to do anything we could go back and forth reverting each other and they blocked me for intent. Yet, I could give a list of diffs a mile long of Admin's abusing their powers and they get not so much as a notice. That's Wikipedia for ya. Good luck and happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, admins have too much power here, especially if they're long term contributors. Such admins are able to pretty much do whatever they want with no fear of retribution, and worse, they often use that power to assert their own POV. That's one reason why I don't do much editing here anymore (the other reason being I got insanely busy in real life...). ArbCom was supposed to fix it, but many of the arbs (not all) are as bad as the worst admins. I guess this is what happens when you basically have mob rule with no clear cut authority. Anyway, happy editing to you too. :-) ATren (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It is sad that, except w/r/t uncontroversial topics (for which it is often excellent), Wikipedia is generally worse than useless: it is a propaganda conduit for the favored POV, with dissent ruthlessly squelched by activist admins and their allies. I thank you for trying to improve this sorry state of affairs, and I sympathize with your frustration. NCdave (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, in my view, most media is also a conduit for the favored POV (both sides) so maybe it's just an artifact of the information age. But at least Wikipedia is useful for non-controversial stuff (it's a great resource for math and non-controversial science topics) ATren (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello ATren. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


I don't come here often anymore, but tonight I decided to check my old watchlist just for old times' sake. And lo and behold, NOTHING has changed. The same abusive asshole editors causing the same trouble as always -- and immune to sanction because of their favorable POV. Meanwhile, the few sane ones continue to labor incessantly to maintain some semblance of sanity. I'm glad I left. :-) ATren (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

File:GerryCheeversScar.gif listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GerryCheeversScar.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad I found this[edit]

I'm really glad I found your userpage. It appears as a climate change skeptic has been banned after trying to game wikipedias system. Good to see the system is working as intended, keeping trolls and agenda pushers out. Thanks for being an example that the wikipedia inner workings can indeed work! (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not actually a climate change skeptic, at least not in the way you might define the word. I am skeptical that all the predictions will come true, for the simple reason that chaotic systems such as climate are so difficult to predict. I do, however, believe that action NEEDS to be taken to mitigate the risk, because even if I don't believe 100% that all of the predictions will come true, I do believe that there is strong evidence that we are in trouble. If a killer asteroid were predicted to have a 5% chance to hit earth in 2100, we would take steps to mitigate that 5% risk. But IMO the risk of at least some of the GW predictions is larger than 5% and they have just as dire long term circumstances as an asteroid. So I certainly do advocate action to curb emissions, and I pretty much always have. I think we should be investing in solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, even fusion, to get us to the post carbon world before it's too late.
My real problem with the GW clowns here on Wikipedia is that they acted like buffoons in pushing their case. They called themselves scientists but thoroughly enjoyed the bully pulpit they had here with their Wikipedia admin protectors. They used that power to not just verify truth, but to ridicule opponents and cleanse every article of any interpretation that did not mesh 100% with their own. Unfortunately most of the arbs were on their side, so even when I pointed out blatant abuses, the arbs had to put me in the corner with them, so as to not offend the almighty GW posse.
So you see, it's not really that I'm a "skeptic" -- it's that I am so repulsed by the tactics of the GW editors that I had to oppose them. ATren (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)