Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:19, 5 May 2010

This is the talk page for discussing General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:GS/CC/RE

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

FellGleaming

I have no faith in this process, so all I'll do is make a comment that FellGleaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be flouting his terms of probation at Ian Plimer. Make of it what you may. ► RATEL ◄ 08:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If others also feel FG is in violation, and have some faith in the Probation enforcement process, then they can make a request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to file an enforcement request but the prospect of doing that makes me woozy. One might have thought that the idea of the probation was to create a relatively straightforward process, rather than to empower those causing problems through creation of an arduous, time-consuming process that imposes a barrier to enforcement of policy. One would, by the evidence so far, be mistaken.

On the immediate issue, FG has been acting slightly more reasonably of late. We'll see how long it lasts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I had become concerned at Fell Gleaming's curt dismissal of a concern I brought to him last week, but things have moved on. Following John's filing, which was eventually closed as outside the topic area, Fell Gleaming took a rest of nearly two days, and since then although I haven't followed his edits I have taken a quick look at his talk page, and there seems to be far less evidence of either third party concern about his fidelity to sources or problematic reactions by him to such concern.

I assume that either he is making a successful effort to respond, or else last week's problems were a brief lapse. Either way things are looking better. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear that FG is an intelligent editor who saw the heat and got out of the kitchen. He was given time to do this by a poorly conceived enforement request against him. There should still be a time, despite a few days gone past, for further issues to be raised, becasue he has followed this editing pattern across several articles, showing that it is a modus operandi rather than a short term lapse. I happen to think FG is an editor who knows how to follow[REDACTED] rules but is also an editor who is willing to stretch these to the limit and beyond. Therefore too much leeway is not a good thing. Polargeo (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't at all a bad thing if a wayward editor recognises his faux pas and takes an opportunity to recover. If evidence of long term boundary-testing should emerge at some later point, this would mean that an editor wasn't being responsive enough and then we might want to do something to improve the situation. Tasty monster (=TS ) 11:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A tactical head down for two days is clever avoidance of facing the issue and not a recognition of his faux pas. Polargeo (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Over-reliance on blogs

There are a small number of blogs that fall within the probation topic that may be regarded as reliable sources on the expertise of the blogs' authors. By and large, though, blogs are not reliable sources, and there are also severe problems of weighting especially with blogs that have a very slanted political tone.

I think it's time for a general motion ruling the use of blog sources in general, with the noted exceptions, as forbidden within the probation area. This would simply clarify our existing site-wide content policy, which seems to have been ignored for some time. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And no blog comments ever. That should not be countenanced at all on Misplaced Pages, and certainly not to attribute words to living persons. This must be stopped at once. Lax sourcing in the probation area must be stamped out with determination. Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I support not using blogs in the probation area, with, as TS suggests, some extremely limited exceptions (quoting the person who reliably is the author of the blog on what their opinion on something is... IF it is relevant, which is almost never is, being the main one) I'd go further and suggest they not be used at all, again with limited exceptions. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this an example of what you're talking about? Cla68 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Tim Lambert is a blogger with no professional expertise in this field. His comments often make sense but even when they do they should not be used to source statements of fact on the subject.

In the case of the article in question, the subject's lack of credibility on science has been demonstrated repeatedly by reliable sources and our article should reflect that, and any statement of fact by him on matters of science should be presented with according care.

It isn't necessary to couple every one of his statements on science with a refutation, especially if the experts do not take the statement seriously enough to refute it. Indeed, that would be reasonable grounds to cut the neglected statement altogether. Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blog comments?

There is a nice article / interview with Curry http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/. You'll see me there too :-). I would like to use some of that, and some of Curry's comments. I think it is very clear that the comments there really are from Curry - but I'm not quite sure what rules we are applying William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Blog comments are not reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Impeccable", but not reliable :) Guettarda (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not impeccable either. Wow. Broken record. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When you change you mind you can strike your comment. All of it, of course, since the sanction hinges on your assertion that blog comments are "impeccable". Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that's correct. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase that - your proposed sanction hinges on the quality of the sourcing of the text removed. The problem is that, even aside from the unacceptable content, the edit was bad. Quotes were switched around to make it look like Curry was saying one thing, when the source had her using the same words to support something else. Other statements were spun, with qualifiers like "in particular" and "especially" which could not be reasonably drawn from the text. There was inappropriate generalisation - Curry's criticism of parts of the IPCC process was turned into an critique of the IPCC as a whole. In other words, the first and third paragraph - 161 of 213 words - were clearly inappropriate, so the only judgement call was whether WMC should have left the middle paragraph hanging on its own. And that says nothing about the WP:WEIGHT issue.

The premise of your proposed sanction was that (much of) the text removed well sourced. In truth, it wasn't. Some of it may have been attributed to a good source, but the quality of the source is irrelevant if an editor misrepresents it. Why do you stand by your proposed sanctions if they, in fact, have no foundations? And how you base a proposed sanction on the "quality" of sources without carefully examining the content of the sources and the way they are represented? Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I may not necessarily agree with it, but I find that analysis much more useful than repeating (6 times!!!) "you said blogs were impeccable" when I did not say any such thing, which I repeatedly clarified to no avail, which was your previous level of discourse. Thanks for making the effort, at last, although one could wish you would have tried sooner. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar's involvement

When the hell are we going to stop Lar making such biased and ridiculous attempts to get maximum sanctions against editors such as WMC. When are we going to stop him from commenting as an univnvolved admin when he is addressing an editor who he has personally provoked on several occasions and has clear personal animosity towards. That is not, and I repeat not uninvolved when it comes to assessing a 1RR situation on a BLP. Lar you lost the last little tiny tiny micro shred of credibility you ever had on this matter some time ago and you just keep on reinforcing your ludicrous bias time and again. Polargeo (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give diffs, or at least something more specific? Suggesting sanctions against an editor, even repeatedly, is not itself a sign of bias.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well this is fairly silly provocation from Lar. What are you afraid of? A challenge to WMC no less! Followed by extreme over the top requests for sanctions. Lar is as personally involved as they come, time to bow out. Polargeo (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh and before you ask this is the simple explanation WMC gave for removal of content on his own talkpage. Showing Lar is turing up and making unwelcome comments on WMC's talkpage and then goading WMC when they are removed. I don't think this sounds at all uninvolved, does it? Polargeo (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Even whilst we are having this discussion he is busy pushing his ban WMC agenda. It is so sadly blatant that if it wasn't being condoned it would be funny. Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar's involvement is very much like MN's attempts to write RFCs. Three times he has tried to write a neutral RFC, and three times everyone has agreed that his RFC was non-neutral and needs to be re-written; but MN has never managed to see the problems himself. Similarly, Lar will never see his own problems William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But perhaps I am an aluminum pot, with a bit of discoloration, and you are a cast iron kettle, blackened from hard use. I think I'm far better at introspection than you are. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting personal comment. It is good to see you have given up all illusion of impartiality. Polargeo (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also interesting that Lar came down on User:Stephan Schulz like the proverbial tonne of bricks when he considered that Stephan was an "involved admin" in the ridiculously weak request for arbitration. , just follow the thread and weep at how over the top Lar is there. Lar is weighing in with all of his might in a rather shockingly biased way in this area and yet still claims uninvolved status for himself because he hasn't contributed to the articles. Polargeo (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I will give you the advice (more like a warning) which I've been given in the past: take your evidence to RFC/U or the arbitration committee, and stop making accusations against Lar here. ATren (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to give diffs. I did. Surely it is up to CC enforcement admins to either take note of Lar or not as they do with everyone else. When Lar makes a big admin decision rather than blowing a lot of hot air about that is the time to take it further. I am very much of the old school, deal with it at a local level and don't escalate everything. When Lar actually starts to use his admin tools on this I will take it further, until then a silly comment in the wrong section by Lar can and should be dealt with here. Polargeo (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, I suggest you back off a little. The other admins are handling the issue. Over the past few months Lar has gradually become his own worst witness; he has now descended to calling his fellow admins a "mob." So you don't need to say anything. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a diff where I directly call my fellow admins a mob. Hint: unless you are not very good with analogies, you won't be able to. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you seem to have quite the bee in your bonnet. I think your shrillness does just about enough refutation, as is. But to be clear: my comments are not in the wrong section. Nor are they "silly" or "hot air". Your tone is unhelpful. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you are talking to yourself, or should be William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Charming. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, my tone is unhelpful to your agenda maybe. The bee in my bonnet was lodged there by your actions. Polargeo (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you all have a problem with Lar, then follow the dispute resolution procedure: Lar's talk page, RfC, ArbCom, something in that order. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments on validity of sanctions

With so many questions, rightly or wrongly, about how uninvolved the participating admins have become it seems that it would be a good idea to open an RFC or whatever is appropriate for the wider community to give it's opinions on how valid these sanctions still are. It may be that the closed environment of specific CC sanctions is not as much help as was originally intended. Weakopedia (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not good to send this focussed section off on a tangent so I have split this into a new section. I think these sanctions should be scrapped and my opinion has never changed on this since the moment I realised they were in place. I firmly believe that the initial discussion that these sanctions arose from was so poorly advertised that a consensus cannot be considered to have been reached in the first place. Polargeo (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, for what it's worth.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Jimbo's idea that the climate change articles should be treated the way the Scientology articles were. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You, of course, realize that that will result in "Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Climate Change or Climate Change related persons and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year," right? I mean, line up the trucks, because I'm completly on board with that. Hipocrite (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. You have no idea how bizarre it is for me to pay this much attention to a topic I don't care about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Start compiling the list. I'll list only people on my "side." You list only people on yours. Hipocrite (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The people on "my side" have all stopped editting these articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know you alledge that. Ok, list only people on Marknutley's side. Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you done with your list, yet? Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Compilation of such a list is probably a violation of WP:AGF or something. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How can we file our joint request for baninantion if we can't even draft a complaint? I'm prepared to go. Are you? Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To ArbCom? Yes, I'd be willing to file a joint request with you. I won't have time to work on it today, though. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, to here. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The admins here I don't believe have the authority to do a "Scientology" type ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

These hypothetical distractions are going nowhere. Give up or cut to the chase. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. This whole "I'd ban both sides!" pattina of balancedness deserves evaluation. We all know AQFK would ban WMC, but no one knows who on his side hd 'd get rid of (Queue "I'm not on a side" objection). Let's get to it. List time. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I proposed something like this a year ago during an ArbCom case (I'd have to find which one) that all the AGW regulars be topic banned. I think that would help resolve many of the problems. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

For the historical precedent to this approach, see Arnaud Amalric. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested the same a few times before. I suppose I'm not sure what the consequences would be, but it doesn't sound so bad right now.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Why are we getting into this trench warfare?"

It's a painfully obvious that the sanctions are being used as a tool to win content disputes against one's ideological opponents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What a shocker. Hipocrite (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then what's the point of these sanctions? Has the dispute been resolved yet? It's been 4 months since the probation started. Are we finally close to a resolution? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of these sanctions is to lower traffic on WP:ANI related to climate change. They have been wildly sucessful in that goal. You appear to believe that these sanctions were designed to resolve disputes - in that, you are incorrect. It is impossible to resolve disputes when a non-trivial segment of the disputant population on both sides has goals at odds with the creation of an encyclopedia without removing those actors, and you, among others, have been vehimently opposed to removing those actors, though you show promise above. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why is it called Dispute resolution? Oh no, if it were up to me, I'd topic-ban both warring factions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic banning both warring factions would simply allow for more warring factions to come in and fill the boots. Since the creation of this process the disruption created by the war has been a lot less, it's true the dispute resolution expression is a bit poor, really its more like disruption control. The one-RR has also been very helpful. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You state the disruption has been less but this is based on what? Less stuff turning up at ANI becasue it is dealt with in a more battleground partisan way here? Polargeo (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Less disruption to articles and less protecting of articles and less revert wars, yes this page has become the full focus of the war, which is imo much better than BLP articles continually being revert warred and having to be protected. Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is meant to be about CC sanctions not about BLP articles. Now we have the case where a single perfectly legitimate revert on a BLP ties up several admins for a considerable time. Where is the improvement there? Polargeo (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There are BLP articles in the CC sanction project, multiple of them. I don't know about this single revert tying up multiple admins. Its an awful mess, everyone knows that. Any Administrator that is even prepared to try to help clean it up should get a medal. One option is just delete all the climate change articles, that would stop it. Disrupted articles with POV issues are of no value to readers anyway and do nothing but weaken wikipedias reputation.Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

if it were up to me, I'd topic-ban both warring factions - you, of course, aren't a warring faction. Your edits are pure as the virgin snow and like you are free from all traces of bias? But I don't believe that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not perfect and never said I was. In any case, I'd be perfectly willing to be part of such a topic ban (if that's what the powers that be decide) for the good of the project. This isn't a topic I care about so it's no big loss for me. Hell, I would be happier had I never stumbled across this mess in the first place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For someone who purports to care nothing about this you're making a very poor show of not caring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that I didn't care about WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC, stop baiting other editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar (moved from project page)

Respons(es) to this post:

moved content

• • Your caution is misplaced. There is a cadre here who spring to WMC's defense like clockwork. Whether you admit it or not. I grow weary of being the lone voice (among admins) calling this out though. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hint: If you are all alone, maybe it's because you are wrong? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephan: Often the case. Usually the way to bet, in fact. But not always.

By simple application of conditional probability, that means you are more often than not wrong even if you think you are right... (injected in the middle of Lar's comment by --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Except that you are overgeneralizing. I refer to the general case. What is your sample set of times that I've been the lone voice where the outcome is known? I don't think you have a big enough sample set to properly apply the general principle to my specific case. Some people are right even when they are lone voices. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not... Perhaps we should allow WMC to be as snarky as he wishes, and allow your cadre to control the discourse in this topic area for the good of the encyclopedia, and we should remove items, even when sourced to the NYT, if they are inconvenient to your narrative that there is no doubt about the methods and tactics used by the researchers, and perhaps we should allow WMC and others to insert negative material into the BLPs of skeptics whenever they wish, even when sourced to the worst sort of attack blogs, because that's just how things are around here. Yes, perhaps I'm wrong and should stop pointing that stuff out. It's very tempting to walk away and leave your cadre to it. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe your conclusion is in error, although I suspect it is the selection of assumptions, rather than the math per se, and the common English confusion about “you” which can mean the particular or the general. I read (what I presume was Lar’s respone) 'Often the case. Usually the way to bet, in fact. as referring to the generic case, not the specific case of Lar.. Maybe I misread, but I think not.SPhilbrickT 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Asserts facts not in evidence" is how you normally put it. "My cadre" is another exhibition of battleground mentality. And I don't have a sample - I assumed good faith that your claims about your rate of being wrong is right. Or was that just rhetorical mock-humility? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a lone voice just can't stand against a mob even if the voice is right. But if WMC gets off scot free, again, then I think it's perhaps a sign that there is no hope of ever leveling the playing field and the article control you all exert will continue indefinitely, regardless of how matters proceed in the real world. What I can't figure out is what you all are scared of. Why is it unacceptable to even acknowledge there is any dissent or disquiet (even among the faithful) about the methods used to frame this debate in the real world? The truth will set you free. Supposedly. But I'm fresh out of sackcloth and ashes so ... ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Asserts facts not in evidence" is how you normally put it. And your language shows a clear battleground mentality. Who is "you all"? And you are aware that "in the real world", the first three (and so far only) investigations of the CRU email event have all found no substance to the allegations against science or scientists, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

::Please remove Lar's comments entirely from this section based on his last comment. Totally totally inappropriate accusations and content discussion, both partisan and out of place on a discussion about WMC's revert on the Judith Curry BLP. Remove my comment too whilst you are at it. Polargeo (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your request is off base. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

end moved content

This is a matter that should be laid before the Arbitration Committee

Lar has stood alone among uninvolved admins recently in advocating a one-year ban from the topic area for William M Connolley. On the basis of exactly the same evidence, at least three other uninvolved admins have gone so far as to commend Dr Connolley for his actions, not merely to exonerate him.

Lar has made some serious accusations against his fellow admins that, if true, mean that Dr Connolley is engaged in serious abuse of Misplaced Pages and this probation cannot or will not do anything about it, and that the admins as a whole are actively conniving in the abuse. The credibility of this probation has been brought into serious question. Lar isn't normally given to wild accusations. He has high credibility, which makes his accusations all the more damaging.

In order to resolve this, I think Lar, and those editors who support his accusations, should assemble their evidence and petition the Arbitration Committee, in the usual manner, to consider their case. I do not think it would be healthy for Misplaced Pages if Lar were to continue making such serious accusations against his fellow admins without seeking fully to resolve the matter. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is merit in this but I want to clarify, the serious accusations I make are not against "my fellow admins"... at least one of the people I see routinely springing to WMC's defense is not an admin, and I have no issue with any of the admins who have been doing a lot of enforcement work here, including those who do not agree with me that this particular incident is sanctionable. But I have to decide if it's worth the bother of a case... perhaps I should just shrug and walk away, just as convinced I am right as ever, but not caring about this matter any more. Misplaced Pages isn't the shining city on the hill it once was for me. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so to clarify, you think there is a problem with William M. Connolley's edits, and with what you perceive as a crowd of enablers. On this occasion you accept the judgement of the other admins as legitimate dissent, on the basis of the evidence they have seen, but you think the underlying problem is an abusive editor and his enablers. Is that about right? --TS 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a close enough approximation for our purposes. The nuance is that WMC isn't the only problematic editor in the crowd and sometimes he's one of the enablers rather than the enablee. ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, how do you account for the continuing imbalance in enforcement? Most of those subject to serious sanctions, over a very long period, have been editors attempting to insert minority opinions as fact or as representing a serious challenge to mainstream opinions. Connolley on the other hand tends to favor strong representation of mainstream opinions, and it can be assumed I suppose that those to whom you refer are of similar mind. Now if the other uninvolved admins are being presented with evidence that such editing has led to undue whitewashing of our articles, removing minority opinions inappropriately, and that this predominantly involves actions by Dr Connolley, why do they nearly all disagree with you? I mean, if they're not among the enablers, why would they do that?

Or to ignore the allegations of bias that often surround this issue, perhaps you object solely to the methods of Connolley and those who tend to agree with him, and not to their broad judgement on content. Still the question is there: why do the non-enabling, uninvolved admins disagree with you? --TS 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I "object solely to the methods of Connolley and those who tend to agree with him" (well, almost solely, I have some quibbles around the edges, some doubts about emphasis, but I accept the science, unlike some) As to why the other admins disagree? I wonder that myself. Perhaps they don't have the stomach for it. I certainly don't. For if I had, I'd be in there blocking and topic banning instead of merely putting my views forward. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Just take a minute and look at the kind of content you're alleging is being kept out via spin control. In one little example we have one sentence sourced to a blog comment, another that includes quotes not in the source coupled with verbatim copying not in quotation marks and very obvious spin. And there's a pattern of this sort of behaviour, not by one editor. That addition was proposed by Tillman and supported by Mark Nutley and Cla68. And this is not an isolated incident, it's par for the course.

Your characterisation of the situation does not resemble reality. That's all there is to it. It's not that legitimate minority opinions are being excluded. Curry said what she said, and it can be sourced to reliable sources like Revkin and Discover. This is then being spun by the blogosphere, and the spin is added back to the articles. Sure it's attributed to reliable sources, and probably in good faith by people who read the bloggers and repeat their spin. So sure, the spun material is attributed to Revkin.

It's easy to look at the cited sources and say yes, this is "impeccably" sourced. But if you don't read the sources, and read them carefully, you're simply perpetuating a falsehood. It's not good enough to just check if the sources are there. If want to defend the sourcing you need to read the sources, carefully, and compare them with the text. Or, if you can't be bothered to do that, you can refrain from commenting on the quality of the sourcing. Guettarda (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were still editing in the probation area I would probably take a closer look to see if there was evidence that the article, and possibly others started at around the same time, was created as a coatrack to import statements that would otherwise have little or no place on Misplaced Pages. We do seem to have an alarmingly high number of biographies of fringe figures in the global warming dispute, and the biographies of scientists who have long been eminent in the field have sometimes only been created or expanded from stub because somebody thought a whiff of manufactured scandal of more note than long years in the academic field. One particularly painful example of the latter is Keith Briffa, which was created or recreated after author-requested deletion in order to serve as a coatrack for so-called "Climategate" allegations. I'm sure Doctor Briffa, a painstaking and conscientious scientist, never imagined in his wildest dreams that investigation of tree rings could lead to such excitement. --TS 20:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

On whether it's "worth the bother", what bother would it incur to you? Cla68 has taken the trouble of compiling lots of evidence that he thinks shows Dr Connolley as an abusive editor. He may well be more than willing to present it to the Committee. It seems to me that all you would have to do--at most--is assent to this path, rather than your current path of making broad accusations of bad faith against a number of vaguely identified editors. You must know that your current conduct calls the entire probation into question, and indeed suggests that it is actively harmful to Misplaced Pages. You should probably, I think, accept some responsibility for seeing that a serious dispute like this is resolved with a minimum of damage to Misplaced Pages. --TS 16:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m not following why Lar should bring this to the Arbitration committee, as opposed to those who hint that Lar is out of line. While Lar has expressed his unhappiness with the way interactions have occurred, I don’t see any evidence Lar has expressed that the current dispute resolution process has failed to work. Isn’t that what triggers (or should trigger) an Arb Com case? SPhilbrickT 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar has lost credibility as an uninvolved admin with his comments. TS is trying to deal with this in the most non-confrontational way he can. I personally believe this is best dealt with by a swift comment and leave it at that. If Lar wishes to push his agenda further, TS has highlighted where he can do this. Polargeo (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Others who think Lar is harming Misplaced Pages with wild accusations could also bring the case before the Committee, but I don't think that would make much sense unless Lar continues to make accusations of bad faith against a group of vaguely identifiable editors working within the probation area, and effectively labelling this probation as having degenerated into a forum for rubber-stamping the abuse of Misplaced Pages. If he stops venting those accusations then it doesn't matter if he pursues dispute resolution or not, because the dispute will have ceased to escalate of its own accord. I strongly suggest that, should Lar wish to pursue this, he avoid doing so as he has in the past few hours, by highly unproductive comments on the probation page.

I have absolute faith in Lar's good will towards the project and his ability to do the right thing to improve our chances of reaching the project goals while resolving this dispute. I'm suggesting that he do so by the most obvious method. There may be other methods as productive or more so. --TS 17:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

He's been making accusations like that for months, if not longer. But I believe he can change, and hope he will. After all, he recently promised to bring "good Lar" back. Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar approaches these issues with balance and common sense. He points out simple truths that are obvious to most uninvolved readers. He is brave enough to say what many people are afraid to say in this poisonous topic area. We need more Lars, not less. Thparkth (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst we are discussing this Lar has continued to respond as an "uninvolved" admin with general mud slinging against WMC here. The fact that he takes every smallest opportunity, such as a poorly conceived enforcement request on a clearly valid revert to a BLP to try to maximise sanctions against an editor who he has previously taunted absolutely sucks. Lars sniping against WMC during basic enforcement decisions has now become disruptive to wikipedia. TS has highlighted where Lar can bring up these issues should he wish to take them further, other admins have suggested his comments and methodology are out of place here. I suggest further attempts by Lar to act as an uninvolved admin in this situation should be actioned against as pure disruption and provocation. Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This would likely cause more problems than it solves. Ultimately the community catches on to people who are determined to destroy their own credibility. We are beginning to see glimmers of awareness here in the comments of other admins on the present case. Stay above the fray. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• While Lar may stand alone in suggesting (not advocating, since the comments are only within these pages or when specifically addressed to him elsewhere) that the AGW articles may benefit from Doctor Connelley being topic banned from them, he is not alone in regarding the attitude and conduct of Doctor Connelley as being detrimental to the editing environment currently found here. I do also, but my preferred method is to see if there are ways in which to remove the ability of Doctor Connelley from agitating some editors without removing his ability to apply his knowledge of the subject to the articles. Neither Doctor Connelleys past article contribution history, or the historical (and ongoing) efforts by now banned AGW skeptic orientated accounts, excuse Doctor Connelley's apparent and obvious disdain for AGW skepticism and those who may edit to that pov, nor his willingness to investigate the boundaries relating to what he may say to such editors without triggering restrictions put in place after a consensus that he had not been interacting at an optimum standard previously. You have to ask yourself, when complaining of Lar's supposed failings in commentating upon the perceived failings of others, why Doctor Connelley is already subject to restrictions within the probation area where other equally sound content contributors who subscribe to the consensus AGW view are not? Doctor Connelley can easily ensure that existing restrictions placed upon his ability to interact with some editors are not extended, and the current ones allowed to lapse without hindering him being able to edit articles and partake in talkpage discussions. Rather than seek to change Lar's views on how the disruption that apparently dogs Doctor Connelleys editing history in these places, why not see if Doctor Connelley is willing to edit and comment without upsetting some of the other editors - or is at least able to endure being forced to do so within some form of sanction or restriction. I have absolutely no problem with him being found to be the better man, if it means that the editing environment improves - and neither, I suspect, would Lar. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Connelley's apparent and obvious disdain for AGW skepticism and those who may edit to that pov - Have you ever bothered to check your facts? Have you ever bothered to read Stoat, or notice his unwillingness to call things denialism, even when the obviously fit the bill? We're talking about someone who's very middle of the road, very respectful to people like Lindzen, Michaels and the Pielkes. Far kinder than he is to Romm or Monbiot. He shows disdain for people who repeatedly spin articles away from NPOV - on either side. He's no more willing to tolerate what one might call "alarmist" POV pushing. I've seen people on that side appear genuinely hurt that he isn't willing to endorse their POV. Quite frankly, given the constant stream of shit that's aimed his way, he's remarkably polite. I remember him being unfailingly polite to Ed Poor for years, despite his views. I have seen him spend pages trying to explain science to skeptics in polite, respectful terms. You need to realise that the crap than ends up on these pages is only the tip of the iceberg. The constant stream of crap that gets inserted into articles by "skeptics" is mind-boggling. The nastiness that's routinely lobbed at William is shocking. This is the current reality. It would take the patience of a saint to sail through that crap without lobbing a few return shots. If the community has abdicated its responsibility to stop the crap thrown his way (often by editors), the community has little standing to complain about his responses. Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Guettarda that WMC is fairly middle of the road as far as I can tell scientifically. He does not suffer fools gladly though, and should because policy here is to do so. As I said elsewhere "broadly there are two prevalent "narratives"; one of which says that WMC continually being a bit short with other people (and controlling etc) is the source of all unpleasantness and one which says that WMC is a target for a lot of editors because he defends NPOV so diligently and sometimes inevitably he snaps back. Neither narrative is wholly correct, and I can see considerably elements of truth in each. WMC does need to improve his comments and understand why they are being unhelpful, but having continual badmouthing of various forms about him does not in my view strengthen the case against him, it supports the credibility of the second narrative. In general anyone who wants to show up the conduct of the other side would be better laying off and to my continual frustration neither party shows signs of wanting to do this." --BozMo talk 22:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that he was a target because he defends NPOV. He's a target because of who he is, because he has become a target of the, for want of a better word, denial machine. I remember back in the day when the Discovery Institute was sending people here, calling editors out by name. Luckily, while IDists are no less tenacious, (a) there were less of them, and (b) broadly speaking, church folk are more polite, at least on the surface. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar has made this sanction an ideal area for civil POV pushing by editors opposed to mainstream scientific views. In this particular instance he consistently picks on the slightest implication of incivility from WMC, at the same time demanding "leveling the playing field" in favour of fringe views, making broad brush accusations against mainstream editors such as his claim that there is a "cadre who spring to WMC's defense like clockwork", and belittling editors who take issues to Lar's own talk page in what I regard as a very uncivil manner. The policy of suffering fools gladly is being given precedence over article content policies, to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. Reasonable standards of civility should apply, and I'd like to see an improvement from both Lar and WMC. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out how silly it looks when you talk to each other like this. It's not worth it. It just takes up space.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CONSENSUS sometime. --Nigelj (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(resp to Guettarda) I am shocked that you feel the need to link to a WP:BLOG to evidence your claim that WMC is not a rabid POV warrior, set upon destroying any and all dissent from the pov decided upon by the Scientriffic Kabal - I thought you white coat zealots disdained anything that hasn't been peer reviewed by people with more letters after their name than are included in them? Hang your head in shame, Sir.
Now, did that raise a smile? Do you think that I cleverly exaggerated the issue to humourous effect? Or perhaps you think I am being insulting to both Doctor Connelley, and those editors who feel that he is unfairly targetted? Maybe you are annoyed that I have reversed the arguemnt regarding use of blogs in articles, to make a WP:POINT. Angry, even...
These are the consequences of choosing to personalise comments, or to address the contributor rather than the content; even the most innocent of remarks may be taken out of context or poorly misunderstood. That is the simple point I am making regarding Doctor Connelleys continuing habit of addressing some of his remarks to the other party, rather than their edits. If it stopped, then the potential of collegiate and respectful editing increases.
As regards the invective found outside of WP directed toward those who concur with the scientific mainstream, this is no longer apparent within the WP editing sphere as previously. Admins, before I came on board, have been scrupulous in removing editors who were uninterested in content building and were using the articles as a platform to attack editors and denigrate the AGW consensus relating to climate change - and it would be very wrong to example any of the editors who contribute to a skeptic orientated pov as being motivated by anything other than a good faith belief that the RL issues with questioning the basis of CC is under represented - so perhaps it is time that some of the old "Warm War" warriors also change their style of responses. Nobody has to be nice, just some have to stop being un-nice.
Of course, I do not think of WMC in the terms I describe in the opening paragraph - but I was being WP:POINTY; and does this wrong addressing another make it right? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a question

RfC on Lar's involvement and possible bias? Is that the right venue? Polargeo (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What about this User:Polargeo/LarRfC. Any suggestions? I've never tried to bring an RfC before which probably shows. Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this needs more clarity. First set out the context, then the perceived problem, then ask for comments. Don't assume all editors know about the CC probation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary. The other admins are keeping things under control, as we see in the present case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SBHB. This is not ripe yet. There are far more disruptive elements than Lar at present - on both sides. When we get down to Lar, I'll happily help write the RFC. I further suggest that when we get down to Lar, we'll have mostly solved the problem - but, of course, I'm on the side of angels and banning lots of people for moderate time frames to see if that fixes the problem. Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll delete this then, unless anyone else has any further points. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any serious problems with Lar's engagement. He is uninvolved but does hold an opinion (as most of us do) on the way in which global warming should be covered. His insight into the thinking of the less scientifically-oriented and more politically engaged editors is sometimes valuable, and sometimes raises legitimate concerns about the balance between science and politics. Now I cannot even begin to understand that politically engaged view (climatology to me is an interesting branch of the earth sciences) but I do recognise that he shares that view of global warming as largely a socio-political field with quite a few other editors and he articulates it far better than most, which helps to temper my bafflement.

If Lar occasionally presents opinions on probation enforcement that differ greatly from the opinions of others, that is not a problem. Those opinions of course may sometimes reflect Lar's particular perspective of global warming as an intensely socio-political field, just as (for an example) my own perception of climate science as just a branch of the earth sciences that happens to have real world implications colors my take on our coverage and even on conduct issues. That's the kind of spread of opinion we're used to working with on Misplaced Pages, and no experienced Wikipedian need ever be uncomfortable about it.

If some of Lar's conduct should itself ever become problematic then the probation itself could of course be used to remedy that. But since he's a good listener and very responsive on his talk page I don't see that ever happening. --TS 15:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, I've found Lar's talk page a place to get insulted and not a place where Lar has listened to me. Not ideal responses from Lar, I'm glad that others have found him more helpful and would hope that Lar will endeavour to treat all editors with respect. . . dave souza, talk 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found Lar's talk page "a place to get insulted", too, actually. But I do read every comment and try to take it in the spirit it was offered. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar's talkpage is a place where he sometimes politely and sometimes impolitely refuses to listen to any criticism of himself. Polargeo (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that's not true. I don't think it's a view that's generally held. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a view held by me anyway. Now this is going a bit too far... --BozMo talk 17:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Am rather busy just now, but given developments I'll try to discuss these serious issues with Lar on his talk page, and trust that this time he won't just dismiss my views as "snark". . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar has quite evidently gone off the rails recently and the usual admin sucking up to him should really cease. Polargeo (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just "wow". ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to shatter your illusions, Lar, but your use of your talk page is neither welcoming nor indicates any willingness to give serious consideration to views that go against your preconceptions. Your comments above which were moved from the rfe page don't show a balanced approach to the views of other admins. . . dave souza, talk 16:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes , sorry but anyone in any doubt please follow all of Lar's comments in Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar_(moved_from_project_page) and bear in mind that these comments were made in a section for uninvolved admins and had to be moved here, even here they are stunning! I think off the rails is putting it mildly. Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I chose not to contest the move but I don't think it was appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I have started the process Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Lar if anyone wishes to endorse this then please do. Polargeo (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

All comments are welcome, of course, not just endorsements of any particular view. I'm sure that's what Polargeo meant, rather than phrasing that might be taken as canvassing by some. 98.243.219.111 (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Serious request

Please reopen Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Polargeo this is a genuine serious request. I would appreciate if it is denied then fine but just closing it before any admin discussion is not good. Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

I made this suggestion before, I believe it was at 2/0 talk page but not sure, but I'm going to suggest this again. Watching this page as an outsider I find most of the conversation so silly and not important. It's like editors are trying to find anything, even the smallest of edits, to come here and file a complaint or add more noise. Why not lock down all of these pages for say two weeks or a month? This would give everyone a very needed break from all of this mess and it would also make editors edit other articles. After the pages are unprotected then administrators and editors alike can see how the editors have reacted to the articles that are now under constant dispute react. If an editor(s) disappears during this time, only to return after the protection is lifted, it will show important information about whether an editor(s) is here for the project or for an agenda. It will allow for cooler heads to prevail too. A lot of the comments on the main page here is just noise, editors just saying the same thing or stirring the pot. I think that most of the editors are trying hard to work these articles in a positive way. But that being said, there are some who are only trying to push an agenda. I am not going to mention anyone's name so please don't ask. This suggestion has been tried many times, just see AN/i as proof of this, the only difference would be that a lot more articles would be unavailable to edit. Many things have been tried so why not try this? If it doesn't work well then it doesn't work but I think it's worth trying. Just my thoughts about things, --CrohnieGal 12:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a never ending supply of trolls. You can change[REDACTED] but you cannot change the world. Also your suggestion is the first step in killing wikipeida altogether and should be dismissed instantly. Polargeo (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Want to see less people jumping on the bandwagon then shut down Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation.This area is a distortion and distillation of all that is wrong. There may now be a little more enforced civility and a little less edit warring but I don't really think it has improved articles in any way, quite the reverse and it is article quality that this should be about. Polargeo (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, the sanctions are being used to win content disputes against one's ideological opponents. The most recent requests for enforcement are so trivial, they are not worth the community's time to discuss them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and as long as people do discuss them this will encourage more of them. Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

I appreciate that LessHeard vanU intended to draft an enforceable remedy along the lines of "comment on the edit, not the editor...or risk a short block", but it didn't come out like that. One of William M Connolley's remedies actually requires him to explain reverts, so he has to comment on some edits, but the drafting proposed could be read as forbidding such comments.

I'm not convinced the intended remedy is required, because the standard of editing in this area has been pretty appalling, from poor sourcing past gratuitous misinterpretation of sources and cherry-picking right through to excessive weight on speculation and minority opinion.

But if we do go down this route I suggest that it would be in order to expect and welcome properly formatted, well researched enforcement requests for tendentious editing. This would be especially important in cases of egregiously poor editing choices, where the editor is aware of the problem with his edits but has not improved his standards. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My middle paragraph above is garbled. I mean that Connolley's words were appropriate to the circumstances and brief, so I think it's taking them out of context to describe them as a personal attack. There was some utterly abysmal editing going on, obvious evidence of either "POV-pushing" or gross carelessness with sources, and rather cavalier treatment of the biography of a quite eminent climatologist. Connolley isn't just called an expert to salve his ego, he knows the ground well and he took appropriate action. Whether he took the trouble to invite the offending parties and those who supported them in their bad editing decisions should not really matter. They should not expect to be thanked, nor should they be led to believe that they are owed a curtsy. There is a good reason why we don't want poor editing choices made on biographies of living people. Those editors should be told that they are doing it wrong, and undue restraint on expression in such circumstances is not likely to help that. Tasty monster (=TS ) 02:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this editing restriction is necessary, but should be applied to all articles and all people in the probation area. TS, this encyclopedia is not being run for the good of any one persons biography - encyclopedia building is greater than any one climatologist. That means that it is necessary to deal with editors whose opinions may be the opposite of your own, whose opinions may even be wrong. It is necessary to be able to do so in a civil environment.

You could call me names if you liked, but I am sat here with my fingers hovering over the keys, and whatever I write I preview and then save - it is a choice to respond how I do, not a kneejerk reaction. My response to you cannot be justified from you calling me names, or even if I believe that you have wrongly edited.

In the scenario you describe you have one editor who 'knows' they are right and edits based on that, which is fine except that the other editor also believes he is 'right'. It takes consensus to work out what right really is, and that takes a civil editing encironment. Being right doesn't give a person any special editing privelages, or civility waivers.

The fact is that it is always possible to comment on the edit without commenting on the editor. If someone makes X reverts it is possible to alert them to what they are doing wrong without calling them a POV pusher, or childish, or not interested in the science, AGW septic, foolish, foreign, industry-paid, a car-lover, or whatever. Wiki has policies, it is those policies that editors fall foul of - everything else is a weak personal attack.

All editors editing CC should be under the same restriction, or what is the point. Anyone visiting the CC talkpages should see that editors are adhering to Wiki guidelines, or what was the point in the sanction process. The sanctions should be fostering an environment for all to edit comfortably in - then the CC editors can work on content. Right now everyone is allowed to bait each other until someone goes too far and their editing, however valid that may be, is restricted. So restrict everyone to civility parole and only let them comment on edits and their validity, not what they think are the motivations behind such edits, and no more baiting.

Sanctioning WMC alone for this is like putting him in a cage so he can't bite back when he is poked with a stick. Instead take away everyones sticks and you won't need the cage. Weakopedia (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

One of William M Connolley's remedies actually requires him to explain reverts - indeed. And I notice that requirement isn't on any of the others on 1RR parole. And I notice they frequently don't bother William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My middle paragraph above is garbled. I mean that Connolley's words were appropriate to the circumstances and brief - I haven't got a clue what words we're talking about here. For those not following in obsessive details, can you supply diffs? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe he is discussing the diffs Cla68 presented in this section, as that is where LHVU made his reccomendation about enhanced civility paroles. Weakopedia (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? If that is true, LHVU is a delicate flower William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with Weakopedia. Biographies of living persons are not of less importance than the encyclopedia. The opinion of an ignoramus who thinks he's right isn't equal to that of a well informed editor who explains why he is wrong. If there are editors who believe that Misplaced Pages policy is there to enable and encourage civil POV pushing, they are in for a very rude awakening. All Ideas are not equal. Blunt but civil comments on the inappropriateness of exceptionally poor arguments or misconceived editing approaches should not be discouraged. Tasty monster (=TS ) 12:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say that someone who is wrong should have their opinins given equal weight. We have BLP policy for establishing what goes in the articles, however that policy doesn't allow for incivility in it's enforcement. The problem is not blunt, civil comments on edits or arguments, but a general climate of blunt, less than civil comments on editors and their motivations. That isn't a problem with any one editor, but it is a problem. Weakopedia (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Connelley, I assure you I am a hardy perennial and certainly no shrinking violet. I am simply following the admin remit in promoting a good editing environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that there is some disagreement on the question of whether William M. Connolley's comments were uncivil. When somebody wants to say something about poor quality editing I say to them that they should go and say it on the user talk page, which is part of our dispute resolution process, and if they still don't resolve matters they can go up the resolution chain.

Would it be acceptable to explicitly state that William M. Connolley is not forbidden to pursue dispute resolution which may involve negative statements about the quality of another editor's contributions?

It seems to me that, having set up the probation to stop our articles turning into tripe, we would do a disservice to our encyclopedia if we discouraged legitimate dispute resolution against the tripe-mongers by those whose edits have made the global warming articles among those most widely praised--by independent, qualified, external experts--on Misplaced Pages. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to correct the monster here. Probation was most assuredly not set up to "stop our articles turning into tripe" but to manage conduct issues (see the original discussion leading up to enactment of the probation). Whether the articles turn into tripe is basically irrelevant to the probation as long as people are nice to each other and follow the letter of policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I look at the uninvolved admins who have chosen to engage in this area and I see none so inexperienced that they might see the enforcement of the civility policy as the primary goal of this probation, nor do I see any who would, by some freak of English Misplaced Pages's process for selecting administrators, not understand that the aim of the project is to produce an encyclopedia that accurately reflects the verifiable facts. We may differ on the question of whether the planet is warming or cooling, but we can all agree that we must report what the results of scientific research are telling us. This is why we have a probation now: in November and December the process was disrupted to the extent that this probation was proposed and established. The goal was then and remains now to produce the highest quality encyclopedia possible. We cannot do if we write tripe in order to placate the ignorant.

And that's why this section is called:

Tendentious editing

and not

Editors who get a little stroppy about crappy editing

--TS 03:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

LHvU says "I am simply following the admin remit in promoting a good editing environment." If the remit is simply to enforce WP:CIV then in a simplistic sense that's being done: the result is a poisoned editing environment ideal for WP:Civil POV pushing. Attention to WP:TE and to the implications for article content in relation to other policies such as WP:WEIGHT would help. . . dave souza, talk 06:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave, that's an essential point you've made there. The enforcers here must also take into account what the scientific world is saying, and give it (and the editors supporting it) much more leeway. Even-handed "be nice to each other" treatment of pro-mainstream, pro-science editors and, on the other hand, editors who get their information from blogs, industry-funded propaganda and Congresspuppets is so, so wrong! I am already deeply disturbed by what I perceive is biased oversight by at least one admin here, and now it seems, possibly two. It's astonishing that we are dealing with denialism and scientific ignorance at sysop level, and especially in an area like this, important as it is to the future of humanity. For shame, I say. A scientific education to Masters level, which includes study of climate science, should be made a prereq. for admin oversight here. ► RATEL ◄ 09:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Would a letter from MENSA advising me that I have an IQ of 144 - and thus just missing the requirment for membership - be acceptable in its stead? Or perhaps a Diploma from the University of Life (I'm sure I could download one from the hinderwebs)? What about a Long Service Award for being 50 years old - I might be able to bundle that with the previous? Surely that would count for something? If you need actual certificates I should be able to rustle up some GCE and CSE's (and a CAA or two, just for rarity value), perhaps an AAA two star award, although I have long lost track of my Cycling Proficiency Certificate. Actually, I think I might just stick with the results of my IQ test and conduct myself in only discussing my actions with people of equal or greater raw intelligence (as evidenced) as myself... Not, of course, an avenue I would pursue but I trust clarifies why appeals to authority is inappropriate in a open editing environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

IQ is like reading age, they seem to give everyone at least 150-odd these days, same as us all being "Dr". And I don't think even the great WMC did climate change as a topic in his degree? I could only claim some meterology. Cycling proficiency though is a start, how about me doing the Styrkeprøven is 23 hours 43 minutes in 1998? --BozMo talk 11:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I can claim the qualification dave souza ESSC (Edinburgh Schools Swimming Certificate). As far as I'm concerned anyone here is just as good as their edits show, but admittedly my appraisal of the more technical aspects is extremely limited, so I just have to do the best I can. . . dave souza, talk 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant side issues, or talk as if the probation was only ever about civility.

The fact is that the uninvolved admins are already doing a pretty good job of reining in cases of bad editing. In at least one very recent case, for example, editors have been warned about their poor editing choices and their unresponsiveness to expressions of concern about sourcing and balance.

So tendentious editing is within our remit, it can be and has been dealt with appropriately, and I predict above that we will see a lot more of this approach in the future. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone, and in particular to young LHvU and TS. The feeling I was getting, that there was undue focus on demanding an unrealistic standard of extreme politeness from some editors at the expense of looking at proper attention to weight and article quality, may well have been mistaken. I'm glad to be assured that it ain't that bad, and am hopeful that TS is right in predicting things will get better. dave souza, talk 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley blocked 24 hours - requesting leave to edit wip in userspace

As the blocking sysop I have no objections to a conditional unblock being granted, but would note that KDP has protested that the previous unblock was violated by Mn. Any admin inclined to grant the request may care to review the discussion at User talk:Marknutley#Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical question: Blocked users can edit their own talk pages. Does this exemption apply to their whole talk space? That is, could Mark work on a draft article as User_talk:Marknutley/NewArticle as opposed to User:Marknutley/NewArticle? (Any admins care to block themselves and test this? ;-)) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You can, unfortunately, only edit your actual talk page while blocked, not any subpage. He can easily work on the draft article by putting the rest of his discussions in a collapse box though. NW (Talk) 14:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Tested... NW is correct! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification for why i protest, since much of this seem not to be in Mark's talk page archive:

Mark was blocked for 48 hours on 20:35 April 1, and conditionally unblocked 23:11 April 1 to work on his drafts. He broke this several times:

1. 18:50 April 2 talk on User talk:Melesse
2. 19:28 April 2 talk on User talk:Alexh19740110
3. 10:29 April 3 Created Andrew Montford (and subsequently edited it)
4. 11:26 April 3 Created The Hockey Stick Illusion (and subsequently edited it)
5. 13:00 April 3 Created Stacey International
6. 14:40 April 3 Edited Cao Yong (not a new article)
7. 19:22 April 3 talk on User talk:Nsaa
8. 19:44 April 3 Edited Cao Yong again
9. 19:48 April 3 Vandalism revert on Arvi, Wardha

I notified Mark that i would protest about such conditional unblocking in the future here and notified 2over0 about it.

This of course may mostly have been a mistaken assumption over what the conditions where - but i feel that if such a request is granted again, then there must be consequences stated as to what will happen, if he oversteps again. (And a strict definition of what the limits are). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

NW's suggestion of using a collapse box is appropriate, given the history of misinterpreting things that are not pure black and white. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust

I suggest that all that needs to be done on this occasion is issue an absolutely clear and final warning endorsed by multiple admins. He must understand that further engagement on the topic will lead to a reset or extension of the ban. Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that within the request against TGL that there is a section for comments by others (that is, other than the nominator) concerning that request? This is the talk page for the CC probation page - if you have specific comments about an individual case, rather than comments about the CC probation process itself, it would be much better to put them in the appropriate section. There is no reason to open a two-pronged discussion, it only dilutes the debate. Weakopedia (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

For a combination of technical reasons I am sometimes unable to comment on the project page. My comments are still perfectly readable here, but anybody who wants to move them there is welcome to do so. Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW if we had got a rapid apology and acceptance by tgl I would have been strongly tempted to agree but the reaction claiming the original ban was wrong and accusing others of all sorts makes me less inclined to this. --BozMo talk 08:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really taking that side of it seriously. The minority faction has a long history of alleging unequal treatment at every opportunity. That in part comes from its ideological commitment to denying that it is the minority faction (I've recently been looking at blogs and this is standard operating practice there in a way that echoes conduct here very nicely).

So, I don't see any sense in penalizing this editor specifically for propagating a false meme that is characteristic of his chosen ideological identity. He's going to be stroppy and have unrealistic expectations; then again that's what led to his ban in the first place. Since the admins are letting all the other minority editors get away with the same ridiculous bluffing, while not being taken in by it, I surmise that it's as well to turn a blind eye in this case too. An alternative would be to warn all editors that attacking the admins on the probation page will attract sanction. Bad idea. There be dragons! Tasty monster (=TS ) 11:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my final comment, which comes across as far more cryptic than I intended, I'm referring to the Arbitration Committee's fondness for the notion that admins are fair game and should just suck up the attacks. Not exactly fair, I've always thought, but it's probably the lesser of two evils. If you have power to sanction editors, you have to let them get in their free kick. Sometimes they may have a valid point. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As an admin I do not respond to retaliation in a deliberate attempt to wind up the attacker by means of my sanctimoniousicityness - but sometimes I relent and "snap back" to provide them with the sense of self worth in the mistaken belief that a barb has struck home... I can be well cruel, like that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to remember that. And hope everyone else forgets it, in case I have occasion to use it later. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information, the conversation about TGL is in archive 2. After that I believe, 2/0 made the next sanction. Hope this helps, --CrohnieGal 18:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed boilerplate for scope of a standard topic (article+talk) ban

At the current discussion regarding TheGoodLocust's topic ban, there is some discussion of the proper scope of such a ban under this probation. I would like to propose that, as it is likely that more topic bans will be enacted here, we spend a little time now in the interests of consistency, predictability, and not re-inventing the wheel with every RfE thread. I do not think we have encountered any issues with article-only bans, so this is relevant only to article+talk bans.

1. Appeals are always welcome. If someone starts abusing the RfE board, we need to kick it up to AN/I. Any appeal here should be its own section, and a banned editor should not comment on other threads while the appeal is being discussed.
2. RfC/U and ArbCom are not covered. Relevant discussions on: content mediation pages, AfD and suchlike project space, and content noticeboards like RS/N are covered. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force is also covered.
3. I am not sure whether WQA should be covered, but probably.
4. All articles and article talkpages bearing the probation notice are covered.
5. A banned editor may continue to edit unrelated sections of covered articles provided they do not do so for the sole or primary purpose of pursuing a personal dispute originating or acted out in the probation area. For instance, Kary Mullis is covered, but there is a lot to say about inventing PCR without touching on climate change.
6. A banned editor is expected and required to exercise reasonable discretion and judgement in editing articles not bearing the probation notice. For instance, Energy policy of the United States does not carry a notice, but does deal partially with issues of climate change.
7. A banned editor may not participate by proxy by mooting solicited or unsolicited suggested edits or article directions at any venue, including usertalk.
8. I think a statement that discussion of the topic in general terms is okay while specific involvement is disallowed would be too open to (mis)interpretation to be useful in promoting a peaceful and productive editing environment. I think that we should not make a distinction between discussion in general terms and discussion of specific edits or articles. Such a distinction would be too open to (mis)interpretation to be useful in promoting a peaceful and productive editing environment. To my reasoning, such general discussion should also be covered by this type of ban.

In accordance with Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation, User:Example is banned until yyyy-mm-dd from all articles and discussions related to the topic of climate change, broadly construed. Climate change related discussions at noticeboards or user talk pages are included. The dispute resolution mechanisms Requests for comment/User conduct and Arbitration are explicitly excepted. If you wish to appeal this ban, please raise a discussion with the imposing administrator or at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement or Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you for your contributions. ~~~~

Does this look like an idea worth exploring? Point five is just asking for trouble, but I think it is the right way to go. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Very worth exploring. At a high level I'm already in agreement, need to pore over it in more detail but yes, good work. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

2over0 refers to "discussion of the topic in general terms" as if this were uncontroversial. I do not myself go out of my way to abuse Misplaced Pages by using it as a platform for discussing my views on controversial topics, and if ever banned from a topic I would be especially careful. There is simply no reason why I or anybody else should broadcast their views on any subject under the guise of "discussion of the topic in general terms." to specifically grant this right to an editor who is topic banned for reason is perverse and cannot conceivably act to guide the banned user away from bad habits. Please reconsider. Misplaced Pages is not a forum, so there is no reason why an inalienable right of general discussion should be presumed to exist. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor point: if they are free to appeal that means free to work on "drafts" in their own user space so where does this become attack pages etc? Another minor point: if it is worded as though this was the lenient alternative to an outright ban from Misplaced Pages the palatability and effectiveness might be higher? --BozMo talk 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1) I don't think working on drafts ought to be allowed, at least not at any length. Notepad exists, after all. 2) yes. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My experience from watching these things is that sanctions work best when they are as clear and unambiguous as possible. In contrast the proposal given above contains many subtleties and calls for discretion. I appreciate the intent but am concerned that the proposal will cause too many problems. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I like this I also agree with your unease. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an editor with a fairly strong history of testing boundaries. It would be fairer, given the immediate circumstances of the case, to give him very clear and specific bounds that are consistent with other sanctions. A topic ban meaning "keep away from the topic, and we mean it, don't even think about discussing it on Misplaced Pages" would be less painful in the long run, and far easier to justify. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think 2/0 is proposing something in future for the general case. The no exceptions version could be used when it was warranted even if this general case thingie gets adopted. ++Lar: t/c 22:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had forgotten that this was a proposal for the general case. But why would we want to introduce a novel latitude into the ban terms in the wake of a case where clearly such latitude created problems? I just don't understand where this idea that a topic ban is somehow not really a topic ban came from. Let's just go for clarity, and in the unlikely event that we ever want banned users hanging around engaging in "general discussion" of the very topic on which they have been banned from editing, then we can discuss it at that time and in that specific context. Tasty monster (=TS ) 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, I think I am proposing that general discussion should be covered by a topic ban. I reworded point 8 above, as I think I see where the phrasing was being parsed differently than I intended. The numbered bullets are to try to make sure that we all agree on what we mean, so it should not matter who or where a hypothetical future topic banned editor asks for clarification. The italicized text is meant to be filled and copied so we are consistent across similar cases. We could drop the middle two sentences from the boilerplate if you think they encourage wikilawyering. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is excellent, and support it fully. A shorter version might read, in part after the account name and closing date, "A topic ban is a prohibition on editing or discussing the subject on any page in Misplaced Pages space, save ArbCom or Requests for comment pages." Although this may appear to be the concise representation of the limitation preferred by SBHB and TS, I don't think it would be the correct tone to use with someone who has just been so sanctioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that point 8 is necessary for a general ban. This board is about conduct, not content. It is possible to have an editor who is familiar with the topic, even scientifically qualified, but has problems dealing with people not of his opinion. Such a persons conduct may get them reprimanded, but it may not be to the encyclopedias benefit to prevent them from discussing the subject. I think a restriction like what you propose not only restricts the person being sanctioned, it restricts the entire community. I don't think that should be a default option, and should only be specified when necessary. Another scenario is that some editors are prepared to work with 'problem' editors to encourage a better standard of editing, and point 8 could prevent them from addressing the problem directly. Wiki has enough policies about meatpuppetry and soapboxing without making point 8 a default for any editor restricted by this probation. Weakopedia (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@LHvU - I like that wording, as long as we specify RfC/U to avoid any ambiguity with content RfCs.

@Weakopedia - that could certainly be a way forward in some cases. My personal preference is to start from a clear base in cases where we need an article+talk ban instead of just an article ban, but I would like to hear such a proposal next time a specific case comes up. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "some RfC's" as an alternate to RfC/U, since there may be cases of content related RfC where the the banned editor is necessarily permitted to comment - as well as User conduct ones. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility?

Surely this sort of post should be subject to enforcement? It was posted on an article talk page, but it has nothing to do with the article. It insults, bullies and belittles a fellow editor and it assumes bad faith. A couple of the more egregious quotes in my opinion are;

• "the root problem is Marknutley's unacceptably poor editing and pig-headed obstinacy",
• "I've come across editors like him before who have wasted vast amounts of the community's time",
• "If other editors have any diffs of particularly egregious conduct that should be included in the RfC, please let me know"

Thepm (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought about reporting it, because it's a clear example of personalizing a content debate and disparaging another editor on an article talk page. I don't remember seeing ChrisO do it before, however, so if he says that he won't do it again I don't think any corrective action is necessary. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Mark is a textbook example of what happens in this topic area when a new editor comes into the mix from a skeptical perspective. After weeks of mocking and baiting from a few abusive editors, the skeptical editor becomes bitter and reactionary, and starts doing really stupid things. He just got blocked for a blatant copyvio, and recently he's been unable to reign in his hostility. But he's a big boy and he is responsible for his own actions, and if he can't control his hostility then maybe it's best he's removed for a lengthy period. It's too bad the true aggressors are never sanctioned, but I have a feeling that's slowly changing. ATren (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Like a heat incited virus plague on wiki, the offender must have developed immunity while spreading toxic harm in the wiki climate. Where there is civility, there is a cure for what sickens the planet.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)