Jump to content

User talk:Lar/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 66

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.


This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 May 2010 through about 1 June 2010. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Talk Page Archives
My post 2012 archived talk
Archive 79 1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013
Archive 80 1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016
Archive 81 1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018
Archive 82 1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021
Archive 83 1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023
Archive 84 1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ??
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date


Told you

[edit]

Remember this

You are more than likely right stephan, and i suppose this is what i will have to do as it is now obvious that WMC can say and do what he wants and if i complain about it i am the one who is punished, it`s just a waste of my time mark nutley (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's how it is supposed to work. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps not lar, but that is the way it is working, the majority of editors who have made complaints against wmc have been sanctioned, not him. I give up on it, i`m just ignoring him from now on mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And what happens, wmc gets taken to enforcement, and it is to be me who is punished. [1], Fuck this probation. There was no BLP violation, it is a smokescreen to hide the fact the wmc broke his restrictions again The source might not have been the right one, i had it sourced to the New york Times as well. I must have left the blog link in by mistake when i moved the article to mainspace. So again he walks off scot free, and i`m the fucking whipping boy? Great place this mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Pardon me for reformatting for readability) I can see why you are frustrated. I am frustrated as well for different but related reasons. But you have to give them no openings whatever, your conduct and your sourcing must be perfect. That's the way it is. Or else, you may have to take your own advice...
do yourself a favour, quit the cc articles. Your wasting your time mate. mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope it has not come to that. ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this and guess were i currently stand [2] mark nutley (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, I've told you this before and I'll tell you again: when WMC does it, he's defended, but when you do it, it's sanctioned. That's just the way it is right now. We are trying to change this, "level the playing field" as Lar has put it, but until that point, you have to perfect. Righteous indignation will only get you banned. Honestly, I'd much rather see you stop editing entirely if you can't accept this fact, because if you continue to respond angrily you will get banned, fair or not. At least if you quit now, you have the option of returning in a few months if things get better. ATren (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. Also, this is an article about a blog. Is that blog really notable enough to even warrant an article? If it is, should most of the sources be other blogs? I find myself more in agreement with those removing sources than I do with those adding more blogs. Regardless of what I might think of the methods (wholesale may not be the best approach in every case... but here it may well be). Pick your battles. This is a blog. Is it worth leaving in a huff over? ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about someone actually advised Mark when he is crossing the lines? Why is it people that Mark doesn't trust that have to tell him that his sourcing is substandard? Or have to inform him when he is breaking his 1RR restriction?[3] (no - i am not calling for sanctions - i believe Mark was excited and made a blunder)
The basis here is that Mark is making all sorts of bad decisions and apparently no one he trusts is telling him - instead they are projecting the faults onto WMC or what ever un-level playing field that is perceived... Thats not good - and Mark is (quite unfairly) suffering for it.
It is my (unfortunate) opinion that if no one is taking Mark under their wings, and help him gain his feet on Wikipedia, then it will end bad for Mark. He is simply making too many problems for himself. He is a newbie - help him for gods sake. And that doesn't mean stroking his perceptions of unfairness, but instead telling him the rules and guides. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if i may point out a place to start: Please explain to him why this was a rather clearcut 1RR violation, since quite apparently he doesn't understand what a revert is - and doesn't trust me to tell him[4], i even made it rather clear what the partial revert was. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two responses: (1) I have counseled Mark, particularly when he is responding badly to baiting, but I do have a life outside of Wikipedia you know. Sometimes I won't check in for a few hours and when I come online it's already a full blown conflict. (2) Why don't you do the same for WMC? ATren (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, I have to ask, many of the sources you removed here and here are good sources. Why didn't you remove the bad sources and make the wording more NPOV instead of blanking the whole thing? Remember you did the same thing at Lawrence Solomon and got called on it by an uninvolved editor from the BLP Noticeboard. Why are you still engaged, not only in the same behavior, but trying to justify it for others also? Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, since this is not the forum for content discussion - let me just say (although it should be unneccessary): i disagree with your assessment. And i find your comment to be non constructive, and notice that you did exactly what i was worried about (projection unto others), instead of the right thing (advicing about what was the problem (1RR)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're shooting the messenger, at best. If not "projecting" yourself. Why not address the issues raised about your own behavior before hectoring others? ++Lar: t/c 10:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent advice. Why don't you take it? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC, how thoughtful of you to share your views. It's always a pleasure interacting with you. Was that your "obligatory snark" for the day or is there more coming? As for the advice, you are far more in need of taking it than I. As you'd well know if you had even a shred of introspective ability. Tend to the beam in your eye before commenting on the mote in others. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See? It just bounces off. You won't listen, even to your own advice. And you can't resist being snarky William M. Connolley (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC, how thoughtful of you to share your views. It's always a pleasure interacting with you.... I see that wasn't all of your obligatory snark for the day after all, was it? Did you have any substantive contribution, then? I won't tell you what you told me the other day ("butt out") because that would be rude. But it would be nice if Kim answered the questions directed at Kim. ++Lar: t/c 11:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, how thoughtful of you to share your views. It's always a pleasure interacting with you.... I see that wasn't all of your obligatory snark for the day after all, was it? Did you have any substantive contribution, then? (I see you're fond of pointless repetition so I thought you might like some near-repetition). Butt out? No, I don't recall that - doesn't sound like me, sounds more like you - are you projecting? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, it was "butt in" rather than "butt out". Not much substantive difference really.
Seems different to me. Your lack of interest in accuracy is noted. Please don't put things-that-aren't-quotes in quotes William M. Connolley (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close enough to the same thing for me. But that's not evidence of any lack of interest in accuracy, so you may want to revise your notes. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Lar - i'm not shooting the messenger - nor am i unwilling to discuss my "own behaviour", when and if it becomes necessary or pertinent; but i don't really think that this is the forum for such. I will make one short comment though: It is not the URL that determines whether a reference is a reliable source, or determines whether the content matches the text or whether text is presented with due weight. Don't you agree?
The sad thing here though, is that Mark still hasn't been informed that he was in breach of 1RR by someone he trusts. He is still getting the basic message "Oh, you are doing allright - nothing to worry about - its all the others that are a problem - not you."; If no one is going to inform Mark about what constitutes a revert and what doesn't - how is he going to learn? Who exactly is it that is shooting the messenger? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark needing mentoring is a valid point but you're still not answering Cla's concerns. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cla's "concerns" have been and are being addressed at the talk page of that particular article, which is the appropriate venue. They have been so for quite a long time. Did you miss that? Ponder a bit about my comment regarding judgement, based upon just looking on the URL of a reference, as to being a poor guideline for the merit, veracity and weight of a particular piece of information. I've raised this before - admins in this particular topic area are looking too much at the surface of things (URL) as opposed to the context (what is the article about, is it due weight, does it present things neutrally, is it puffing up information to a level that the references can't support .... etc etc.). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So.... Cla and ATren. Are you going to take the block for Mark? He just broke his sanction again[5] - since no one has taken the time to explain to him what a revert is (as i asked). He is now at 3RR, which is rather alot considering that he is under a 1RR sanction. Don't you care? Is it more important to snipe at WMC (or me)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left him a note urging that he step away for a while, and ask about reversion. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to come here and thank you for that :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disengagement?

[edit]
See below. I believe you have baited and victimised WMC and so this line of debate should be solved by those who are truely uninvolved. Polargeo (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've baited WMC? That's rather a novel interpretation. Go admonish WMC to stop baiting people and perhaps things will inprove. You are shooting the messenger. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about tit for tat. Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it's about WMC baiting all and sundry, and then you coming up with the idea that I'm the one doing the baiting. I just don't think that's a view that is widely held. Many folk know about WMC's long term problematic behavior, which he has been admonished about many times. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that I came up with the idea that you were doing the baiting based on my own observations of your conduct. WMC is not currently trying to act as an "uninvolved" admin against you. Be certain that if he did I would come down on him like a proverbial tonne of bricks. Polargeo (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you have no issue whatever with his behavior and see no need to act to constrain it? Or is it just that you somehow think that I'm a bigger problem than he is? I just want to be clear here. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're are a bigger problem. Polargeo (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. I think you won't find that view generally held. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly an admin who wants to police climate change with a heavy hand and a heavy POV is a much bigger problem than an editor who wishes to improve wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Occasional minor incivilites and 2 reverts.!!!! You know as well as I do that is not the issue but I am not the one trying to pretend it is. Polargeo (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly an interesting interpretation but I'm not sure it fits the facts on the ground. What exactly is my "heavy POV" ??? That AGW is happening and something needs to be done? I cop to that one. That the editing environment around the AGW articles is less than optimal? I cop to that one too. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't cop to it. I am a scientist and I want wikipedia to follow the best sources in all articles. If that means humans have nothing to do with warming then great, I follow that. I mearly see your POV as represented by your extreme bias against certain editors. As I said previously I don't care if you run over baby pandas in an SUV but I do care if you try to exert a POV in an odd way by targetting some edtiors whom you clearly disagree with based on some percieved POV pushing you think they are up to. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence about following sources doesn't seem to address my point about the editing environment. The rest has been addressed elsewhere, you continue to assume animus on my part where none exists. My response to consistent baiting has been as moderate as I can manage, and I bear no ill will to anyone. ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you

[edit]

I have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar Polargeo (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunate that you didn't want to talk about things as I offered. I still don't understand where your animus originates. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly sorry that I felt that I couldn't continue in a discussion with you. This is based on my summary of your past responses and actions. Maybe I am wrong but I feel that we are not going to get anywhere because I truly believe that you should not act as an uninvolved admin in this situation and you have repeatedly shown by your edits that you continue to do this despite my concerns Polargeo (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we factor out the "cadre", and the "deniers", who probably will line up along highly predictable lines, I don't think your view has much traction. I understand and appreciate your concern but I don't think I am any more "involved" in this area than any other admin currently active in the enforcement area, and certainly less than most. If consensus comes out that way, would that sort the issue?... or do you think there is more that needs resolving? Really, you're focusing on the wrong problem (at best) in my view. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My view is deal with one problem at a time and the biggest problem in my view is the fact that sanctions have been set up without a proper community consensus and they are being policed by certain self appointed sherrifs who follow their own rules. Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riderless horse

[edit]

You should not have acted on an issue your wife brought up at ANI. Just a very very gentle warning. Polargeo (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI was fully disclosed. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Warning still stands. Disclosing a COI is not a carte blanche to use your admin tools to resolve it. Polargeo (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People turn up on my page asking me to do things all the time. Some of them are friends. No COI if I act on the request, regardless of the relationship. (I think you are confused about COI) Further, I don't edit horse articles much, and have never touched that one to the best of my recollection. I made no content determination, and am uninvolved. Further, my wife and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of things, she recently got an edit war warning from me.

As for your "warning"... find an uninvolved admin (by your definition) to give it, you are (by your definition) too involved. Raise it at AN/I then if you think it matters enough. I think you'll find that most admins would support the action I took in this circumstance. Are you sure you're not being a bit harassing here? ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My warning to you was as a fellow editor not as an admin. I take this distinction very seriously. I would never presume to act as an admin in cases in which I had a major potential COI. I saw the case and felt that I should give you a "gentle warning" I was not going to take it any further and still will not. Polargeo (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume I can give you a gentle warning even if I am not an admin. This seems to be normal practice for wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. It's just that right now, your warning, however couched, doesn't come off as all that gentle, or at least, it does not when viewed through the filter of involvement/uninvolvement that you apparently want to apply. All that said, I do appreciate you sharing your concern. I did consider whether to just let it go but it was rather a blatant copyvio by an apparent SPA. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should not disadvantage people for being open about their identity and relationships. I have my problems with Lar, but this time I find no fault with his actions. A COI is only a problem if the action is inappropriate. Now if his wife has friended him in Facebook, we might have the making of a conspiracy here ;-). What I do find interesting is that Lar now seems to have a new definition of involvement, though... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strive to be consistent. I do not always succeed. Can you elaborate on that last part? ...because if I'm being inconsistent about the definition of involvement, I want to know about it! Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the facebook friends thing is poking fun at a previous assertion by someone (I forget who?) that the cabal of Wikipedia scientifically focused editors coordinated via being eachothers facebook friends and sending out facebook call to arms or something. I don't know, because as much as my wife wants me to join facebook to help her hunt for mice there's simply no way. Hipocrite (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking Stephan Schulz about the "new definition of involvement" thing. I'm clear on the Facebook aspect. I am about to delete Facebook off my Blackberry because you can't suppress those silly Farmville et al notifications the way you can on the web version. ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Over at the CC probation you claim to be "uninvolved" because you do not edit in the subject area, and despite the fact that several editors see that you display a clear (and one-sided, but that's neither here nor there) animosity towards WMC. Now you claim that Polargeo apparently is "involved", despite the fact that he never edited the subject area of the action in question, just because he has displayed some animosity towards you. Which way do you want it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I think I see the source of the confusion... In fact, I do not claim that Polargeo is involved, under the definition that is used at the enforcement page. I don't think he is, under that definition. Rather, I claim that Polargeo should be considering himself as involved, if he consistently applies the definition he has been putting forth elsewhere. Since he apparently doesn't (or hasn't yet, anyway) that's the inconsistency here... with Polargeo. I think I'm being consistent myself. Does that clarify matters? Or worsen them? Small point, but a useful one, I think. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan, did you have a further response or do you concede the point? ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought this didn't require any further comment. It looks like a kind of bidirectional hypocrisy to me. Polargeo is applying your standards (likely to make a point), and you want him to apply his standards. You can, of course, point out this inconsistency, but I don't see how you can complain about him using your criteria for uninvolvement on you, though. It looks like a simple application of the categorical imperative. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mousehunt? Seriously? I had heard of Farmville, which made no sense to me, but mousehunt? I'd say more, but ... I'm sure your wife has very many fine qualities, Hip. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a variety of ProgressQuest, apparently. However, at this point I must cop to prior addiction to World of Warcraft. Also, my wife saves the world one 5th grade class at a time in the Bronx, so I give her a pass on Facebook. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A fifth grade teacher is a saint. She deserves every mouse she gets. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply giving Lar a gentle unofficial warning. Where is the big deal. He did something that I would not have done. I don't think it can be classified as abuse of the tools but I feel it was a very silly thing to do. Polargeo (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of harassement. I am sorry if it seems that way. I am not calling for your head to roll for every single perceived misdemeanor, unlike your actions against WMC for example. Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are not enough hours in the day to deal with every single misdemeanor of WMC, at the rate of completion that we observe at the sanctions page. So I let most of them go. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If taking every single opportunity to call for a major ban when even the most minor issues are brought to sanctions enforcement is your version of letting things go. I wouldn't like to see what it is like when you don't. Polargeo (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that there are many more transgressions than are brought to the enforcement page. Admins have been encouraged by some to not work for consensus first, and instead just start blocking and handing out bans unilaterally. I've completely eschewed that approach up till now (and in fact have done no blocking at all, IIRC). And I never initiate enforcement requests, just comment when they come up. But WMC's behavior pattern is a long term serious problem here. One that hasn't been handled. So yes, I've been proposing more serious sanctions each time he comes up. That is fairly frequently, since the 1RR restriction and others haven't really been much more than a slap on the wrist, really. Certainly they haven't reduced the corrosiveness of his general approach to interacting with those not in the cadre. ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dave souza's concerns

[edit]

Lar, you've not accepted that your comments on these lines should have been moved from the enforcement page to the talk page, and here you are again making accusations about "the cadre" and "the corrosiveness of his general approach", together with the novel idea that you are in a magisterial position to promote sanctions on the basis of evidence that hasn't been presented for community discussion, and only you seem to have seen. I do accept that you've not been doing the blocking yourself, and as far as I've seen you have bowed to the opinion of others, but your comments and dominating behaviour on the enforcement page have produced a corrosive environment. That has a chilling effect on those like myself who wish to see article content policy followed with care to ensure due weight to clear majority scientific views where applicable. Are you willing to stop characterising or pigeonholing others into groups such as "the cadre", which itself is a low level breach of civility policy? Will you accept that each enforcement request be dealt with in relation to the evidence presented rather than on the basis of your preconceived views about individuals? In particular, can you accept that WMC should be held to the same standards of politeness as other editors? Changing the goalposts for one editor you have obvious bad feelings about merely gives an impression that you are arguing in a prejudiced manner. Your talk has appeared to be worse than your actions, but that obviously sets an atmosphere for the sanctions page. Your serious consideration of these points will be appreciated, dave souza, talk 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marker. Not ignoring for lack of desire to engage, deferring for time reasons. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiousity do you think that responding to you is more important than responding to the RfC? The "long argument" you denigrate in your outside view at the RfC is important to refuting the charge made by you (via endorsement) and your allies that I'm "delusional" about the existence of groups of editors of similar interest (and that some of them act to support each other in inappropriate ways). So while I'm certainly interested in your thoughts and will respond when I have time to do so in depth, I do have to prioritize. Unlike some, I don't have significant blocks of time to devote to nothing else than WP. ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do of course have to set your own priorities, and I appreciate that it's been a busy time for you. From the fact that you answered another comment further up the same thread an hour and a half after I'd posted the above,[6] it appeared reasonable to assume that you'd at least skimmed this addition to your talk page. Your argument set out on the RfC talk page effectively rejects my suggestions, but I will of course be glad to discuss these ideas with you and will review my contributions to the RfC in the light of such discussions. Do please let me know when you're ready for a chat, dave souza, talk 14:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a chat with LHvU, a clarification may be appropriate – it would be reasonable and correct for you to take past findings into account when dealing with a new case, my concerns would be about the "no smoke without fire" impression created by repeated unsuccessful attempts to remove WMC from the topic area, inspired by false reports in the media, and the suggestion that evidence never presented for examination could or should influence the decision. Perhaps a grey area, but in view of the circumstances care is needed to make the proceedings open and transparent. . . dave souza, talk 08:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This pile-on brings back some fond memories. Are you all trying to bully Lar into leaving the AGW enfocement page? It sure looks like it to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Followed the link, Cla, are you referring to your suggestion on WR about editors being close to "having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia?" Seems offtopic to me, but if you're discussing this current case on WR a pointer would be welcome. Lar's much earlier discussion with me did give me the impression that he was trying to bully me off CC related discussions, but it's easy to get a wrong impression of that sort and I was probably just reading more into Lar's way of expressing himself than he meant. . . dave souza, talk 08:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine...

[edit]

... how tough it would be for a newbie editor or admin to take on WMC, if someone as experienced as you are taking this much heat without even handing out a single block or ban? Therein lies the problem. It's not just WMC, it's the cadre of defenders who attack anyone who stands up to him. ATren (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That view is apparently not widely held, you realize. At least not among those who frequent the enforcement pages. And further, pointing it out makes you no friends, and not an inconsiderable number of enemies. As I found out yet again. ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so widely held no. And for my part of the favour, it is more to do with how you point it out and not about friendship (I would hope that both of you would consider me some sort of friend albeit who disagrees often; I would always try to make time to listen to either of you). The biggest problem with newbies historically is not him being argumentative but him being patronising. ATren though, you also need to think about the likely outcome of your behaviour to WMC which is a bit harrassing. There are plenty of other people (I could think easily of six) whose only interaction is to drop by to try to provoke him. Is your serious intention to wear him out so he leaves WP, to aggravate a ban or to try to reform him? Or do you think a state of being continually got at will improve him? If you want to try to reform him (which I might suggest is the best outcome) being critical all the time may be counterproductive. And certainly taking the last 500 edits which I just did for fun I would have to say all of the nasty comments do seem to be directed at people who are basically as nasty back, viz MN, you & Lar. --BozMo talk 19:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BozMo, I freely admit that I do not focus on anything right now except for this topic, and in my view it is pointless to try to engage in article work when it's so contentious, and right now, the contentious atmosphere can be largely traced to a small group of individuals (where recently, small ~= 1, IMO). So until this problem is resolved, I have no intention of moving onto something else. That's just the way I operate; when there is a problem, I tend to bury myself into that problem at the expense of all else.
Now, I completely reject your insinuation that this is harassment. If WMC doesn't antagonize others, then I don't bother with him; it is only when he gets aggressive (as with MN recently) that I feel compelled to step in. And when I do step in, it is completely within the boundaries of civility. In particular, when I observe patterns of behavior, I see nothing wrong in pointing out those patterns, as long as I don't cross into ad-hominems, which I don't believe I do. For the most part, I think that's also what Lar has done here (though I do hope he resists the urge to respond to WMC any further, because I learned long ago that trying to engage WMC in debate about his behavior is fruitless).
And BozMo, if you think WMC's nastiness against someone like MN is because MN is "as nasty back", then I think you maybe missed some of this conflict. WMC has been relentlessly condescending and mocking towards Mark, for example implying that he doesn't know a scientific paper from wrapping paper. He's been similarly condescending to other editors too, i.e. Alex Harvey, an editor who repeatedly reached out to WMC in an attempt to find common ground, and all he got in return was constant condescension and baiting. This is not a new problem, and WMC is frequently the aggressor.
As for my goal in all of this: I would like to see this topic area less contentious and more collaborative. In that sense, I don't care if that means no WMC or a reformed WMC. But personally, I would prefer the latter, and I have reached out to WMC in an attempt to achieve that. It was over a year ago, and I believe I sent you links of it already (a while back). It was a link to a long discussion on my talk where I tried to coax him into more collaboration and he basically blew me off. So, perhaps you may believe "being critical all the time may be counterproductive", but in my own personal experience, the alternative is just as counterproductive. It is my opinion, after years of watching this debate, that the only way WMC will change his behavior is for admins to step up and apply a significant sanction, i.e. a topic ban of 1-2 months, to demonstrate to him that these tactics will no longer be acceptable. And then let him decide if he wants to work with others. I would even support cutting short ban if he commits to reform, just as long as he knows that the tactics will no longer be accepted here. But as it stands now, he knows he's untouchable, and therefore he has no reason to change. ATren (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have a soft spot for MN, and I've occasionally tried to point him in the right direction. But he indeed does not know the difference between a wrapping paper and a scientific paper, or a right-wing conspiracy blog and Nature. It's extremely hard and frustrating to try to explain anything to him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. The editors you are defending have been adding blog-sourced content for years. So either they "don't know scientific paper from wrapping paper" or they're outright POV pushers. Which is it? At least MN has inexperience as an excuse. ATren (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please! RealClimate has been to WP:RSN time and time again and accepted as an exception per WP:SPS (written by experts published in other reliable sources on the topic). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this random blog post which WMC inserted here? You are honestly defending WMC inserting a blog that referenced his own blog? The first two words of which were his name? This is just one example Stephan. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TGL, your comment is misleading: that blog was referenced in the first version of the article which wasn't created by WMC. Your link shows an IP deleting the blog, not any action of WMC's. However, I'd question the edit summary in this recent revert – while doubtless the info is correct and significant, a better reference should be found or the info should be added in a different way. . . dave souza, talk 07:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not misleading, just c+ped the wrong diff (now corrected). He and his friends [7] have often inserted or reinserted blog references where they should not - and considering that many would consider that LaRouche association a BLP violation it should be removed (instead of being unsourced as it currently stands). The double standard becomes apparent when people have sourced content to the New York Times (and I'm not even talking about the recent spat) only to have WMC et all remove the content when they arbitrarily decide (and are later shown to be wrong) what the truth is - violating core wikipedia policy of verifiability, not truth, time and time again. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan, you really believe RealClimate is OK but other blogs are not, and not only that you mock the intelligence of those who don't understand the distinction? What IS the distinction, Stephan, that RealClimate is friendly to your views but other blogs are not? That's the problem here, I think. You've been arguing this convoluted logic for so long that you can't even see the inconsistency. ATren (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. I believe some blogs are good sources for some topics and others are good sources for no topic. RealClimate is a good source for factual information about the current state of climate science. WUWT is a good primary source for that W believes, which in many articles is irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(and by the way Stephan, the SPS exception does not apply to BLPs. But you don't seem to know that, so maybe you don't know scientific paper from wrapping paper either, right?) ATren (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...so you have a long list of me adding blogs to BLPs? Or are you just generating random text snippets? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like examples of me adding blogs to BLPs after, say, the creation of WP:BLP, just to set a point of refrence. Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me I think in Climate Change I have only ever taken things out of BLPs and never added them (challenge you to find a counter example). But perhaps I am, in the view of tgl not a friend of WMC? (why does he have friends?). As a Kiping fan I guess I hope "all men count with me, but none too much" at least as far as men (or ladies) who can count go. --BozMo talk 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I feel about you Bozmo. I don't like that you've set up carbon permit trading (seems like a major COI), and I recall you bringing me and WMC to the probation, overstating my reverts by 1 and understating WMC's by 1, but that could've simply been an error on your part. I am rather curious if you've met WMC in real life though due to your geographical similarity? In any case, although your bias is clear, you don't seem too bad. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never met WMC, though tried to get to Cambridge Wikipedia meetings. As for the other stuff...I pointed it out to illustrate how silly the COI example was. As it happens I have been a CEO of six different oil sector companies (in three countries), two with a $1bn turnover and my mentioned responsibility for carbon permit trading was also simulatnaeously for trading and marketing gas and electricity. I was authorising signatory on a $908m contract to build a power station in Amborieta in Spain and at one point in my career was responsible for sales of marine fuel which between them generated 3% of the world's Acid rain. So, delighted though I may be with the idea I am biased by an interest in the Green business my interests in the black sticky stuff was several orders of magnitude more. But sadly for you I am still a trained scientist and therefore more inclined to the scientific methodology and consensus, which is an area where WMC excels. --BozMo talk 22:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you haven't met him (otherwise you probably should recuse yourself), but it seemed like a possibility given your educational/professional backgrounds and proximity. And I don't really need or want to know the contents of your investment portfolio, but you have to admit it is an odd for someone to have set up carbon permit trading and simultaneously be involved in policing wikipedia in a way which could be perceived as protecting such interests. And why is it "sad for me" that you are a trained scientist? I adore science, but I also understand that lies of omission are perhaps the most effective form of propaganda, and I also understand that some fields of science like to pretend that their methods are far more robust than they actually are. You know, I don't recall "consensus" ever being taught to me in high school or college - I was taught to look for problems in methodologies - not to overlook them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are seeking to imply consensus is not a scientific concept, you are correct, it is a Wikipedia one. Most of successful scientific research is in working out which bits of consensus to believe or disbelieve. But scientific consensus is a Wikipedia construct which has all sorts of reasons behind it and we enforce even though we know that in places it is bound to be wrong. On COI meeting other Wikipedians happens a lot and isn't considered a COI (otherwise Wikimania meetings would be a bit odd). Chronologically I left oil and moved to the charitable sector before I ever edited Wikipedia. Aside not having had the time I also had never heard of it. And almost everyone in proper employment in the UK has serious indirect ownership of energy shares (I think they are 8% of FTSE or something like that) so you could argue than everyone has a massive pro-sceptic bias. Almost no one wants global warming to be "real", and that conflicts us all in a way toward pretending it isn't. --BozMo talk 06:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, on the contrary, humans are so predisposed to panic and crisis that the bias is very much towards believing such things (e.g. swine flu, bird flu, snowball earth, supervolcanos, Revelations, peak oil (and other Malthusian disasters), nuclear war, Y2K, 2012, DDT, etc, etc). The fact that some people's careers, their identities, depends on continued belief in it makes evidence they present suspect. As a pessimist I have absolutely no problem in believing things are shit; I just find the evidence to be flawed, circumstantial and better explained by other factors. As for your last point, I actually would like global warming to be real since it would open up a lot of mineral resources in the Arctic and improve agricultural output (a necessity with the growing population) - even though I personally prefer colder weather. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global warming is neither a panic nor a crisis, it is on a slow timescale. On your last point, bearing in mind my that we are on someone else's user page I think I will only say that I feel it is a little "under-researched". --BozMo talk 07:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few points. We seem to be a bit off the topic that Atren started. But that happens a lot around here, it's the nature of the place. :) (and that's A-OK, I like the way things get discussed here...) As for what AGW is, IMHO, it's both on a slow timescale AND a crisis. The slow timescale crises are the worst kind, in my view, because it's always easy to say "well we will deal with it in 5 years but first we have to ___" or whatever. We better take this seriously though, or sooner or later we will come a cropper. Because it's a real problem, not a manufactured one. That's not to say people don't benefit from bad news or misfortune, and aren't perversely incented by that. Don't get me started on the "welfare industry", for example. ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AEB (3%)

[edit]

I suppose my main problem with the whole thing is that the fundamentals of the theory don't make any sort of logical sense. For example, all the catastrophic scenarios of runaway global warming, envisioned by computer models, only work by assuming that the 3-4% of CO2 that man produces (1.52 × 10-5 of the atmosphere) will cause positive feedback loops - this just doesn't make sense to me because CO2 has been so much higher in the past. It is a giant non sequitur - and add that other phenomena better explain events and it all seems rather silly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "3-4%" - men is directly responsible for about 25-30% of the current CO2 content in the atmosphere. Yes, CO2 has been a lot higher in the past, but then the Earth was a lot warmer in the past, not to mention populated by giant man-eating dinosaurs. And, of course, if you go into the deep geological past, the Sun was a lot fainter then, too. But to stress the main point: Unless you are an expert in the domain (are you?), don't you think it takes a lot of hubris to assume you know better than the assembled experts of the world? Would you do that in other domains, like, e.g. medicine or baking or engine maintenance? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not responsible for 25-30% of the CO2 in the air Stephan - only fuzzy math could possibly come up with such a number. CO2 is, in fact, at a low point [8], but hey, assuming you are correct, then without man that would put CO2 levels at 271 ppm - I mean, plants can technically survive as long as it is over 200, but you are definitely cutting it close. The problem with the catastrophic/runaway global warming scenarios is not only that CO2 has been much higher in the past, but temperature has as well - if these unstoppable feedback loops were a reality (on the assumption that water vapor doesn't form into light reflecting clouds...) then the Earth would've catapulted itself into oblivion long ago. As for hubris, I think it takes a lot more pride to assume we are capable of controlling the climate by driving hybrids and switching to fluorescents, but since you are so taken with arguments from authority/popularity (logical fallacies FYI), I'll leave you with a quote (while I watch my backside for "man-eating" dinosaurs), from our favorite atmospheric physicist from MIT:
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." -Professor Richard Lindzen. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-industrial levels are around 280 ppm, yes. We have, in fact, dumped about twice the amount needed to bring us to the current 387 ppm into the atmosphere. If you deny either of those, you are far far far outside reasonable opinion - ask Lindzen, if you like. I don't know what you think "catastrophic/runaway global warming is", but no-one is seriously suggesting we end up like Venus. Have you ever actually read any of the IPCC reports? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-Industrial levels = the levels they would be now? Are you seriously articulating, despite the fact that CO2 has historically varied immensely, that CO2 levels would be at pre-industrial levels if we had not been burning coal and oil? You really think this is a stagnant variable? The fact is that the biosystem crave CO2, which is why they are gobbling up so much of not only our emissions, but also Great Polluter herself the Earth. And yes, I have read through some of the IPCC reports (downloaded them when I downloaded the climategate files) and I was particularly interested in how the moderate reviewers' concerns were dismissed and culled from the report. And by catastrophic global warming I mean disasters as articulated by things like an Inconvenient Truth and the Copenhagen videos - the emotional appeals designed to frighten both support and money out of the public. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CO2 has not "historically varied immensely" - it's been remarkably stable throughout history (as in the last 10000 years or so). It has varied "immensely" only over immense time periods. In fact, even the difference between ice age minima (around 190 ppm - I guess all the plants must have died) and maxima (about preindustrial levels) is about as big as what we now put out in ~150 years, but that change took place over 10s of thousands of years. So yes, I believe that without our emissions, CO2 levels would not significantly different from 280 ppm. And that opinion is again shared by the large majority of scientists, including Lindzen. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this conversation is over StS (or was I supposed to continue?) since it appears I will soon be a victim of "consensus." I guess we can both pretend that I can't knock holes in everything you said. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to wade too far into this conversation, but I am a geologist by education and I must take issue with the statement that CO2 has "been remarkably stable throughout history". In the context of the age of planet Earth, 10,000 years is not "history", it is "right now". CO2 levels today are indeed historically low compared to the last 600-million years or so. Compared to the "average" CO2 concentration during the time that complex life has existed on Earth, levels today are extremely low, to the point that according to some theories, plant growth is retarded and large herbivores and their large predators have all died off. Rising CO2 is not a problem for life on Earth in the abstract, but of course it may be a huge problem for human life on Earth in the specific. Thparkth (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my comment? "History" is typically defined as the period for which we have some written sources - with 10000 years I was on the generous side (and just to make that clear I, well, made it clear by spelling it out. Sure, over longer periods of time, CO2 has varied more (as, again, I spelled out). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read it, and I do actually agree with your main point, I'm just pointing out the difference between an anthropocentric view of time (much favored in climate change discussions) vs. a geological one, where frankly the entire long-term result of the whole of human civilization is likely to be nothing more than an interesting, if slightly more than usually dirty, layer of fossils. Thparkth (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would say - and this is as someone with very basic scientific knowledge - but in Earth history when CO2 levels were as high as they are currently or projected, there was a considerable difference in the flora/fauna then abundant. They could tolerate that atmosphere, through the wonderful mechanisms of natural selection - the Earths current lifeforms are not so able to cope, certainly in changes that can be measured in centuries and decades. The headlines that state the risk to life are referring to those higher classes of animal - and some plants - that include us, our livestocks, our food crops, and the like; the planet and life will likely survive in some form whatever happens to the air and water and sea levels, but that may not include us. It isn't a point I see raised often enough in these debates - or at all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot of organisms evolved under much higher levels of CO2. Amusingly, corals evolved in such an environment and are being used as "proof" of global warming because some are doing poorly (due to farm runoff actually). As for adaption, humans can actually adapt to survive at much higher levels of CO2 (amazing what we can learn from submarines), higher than anything we could put into the atmosphere. The basic problem here is one of limited measurement - we see a tiny fragment of an enormous picture and think we know the whole thing. This is similar to how the news shows us disasters all over the world and how autism is diagnosed more - improved detection does not imply increased activity. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know if the AGW concern is real or over-stated, but one thing I do know is I'm not generally willing to gamble on something where losing has such drastic consequences. Even if there's a 1% chance that the CO2 will destroy all life on earth, or even "just" obliterate the coasts, I want us to do what we can to prevent even that 1% eventuality. So I tend to be on the side of pragmatic moves away from our current addiction to fossil fuels, regardless of the validity of the hockey stick. And the current mess in the Gulf of Mexico reinforces that. Our addiction to oil is a Bad Thing that we should work to minimize.
Where I differ from some editors here is, I believe the fight over tree rings and hockey sticks is a distraction from that larger goal. In their zeal to suppress criticism of the consensus, AGW-supporting scientists are winning the battle in scientific journals but losing the war of public opinion, which continues to lag far behind the scientific consensus. People see Climategate and the Wikipedia CC wars, both involving very high profile people in the AGW debate, and their distrust meter goes way into the red. They don't see scientists presenting data, they see environmentalists trying to take away their cars, or their gasoline, or their right to cut down a tree. Of course, certain elements on the "skeptic" side will amplify those fears (which are already overblown), but then, it's very easy to amplify when they're handed such rich material as Climategate and the Wikipedia CC battles.
But when editors here try to address the problems in this topic area, particularly that a very small group of editors has owned this topic for a long time, we are attacked as "septics" with an agenda. Apparently, nobody considers the possibility that someone like me can be sympathetic to their views and goals while disagreeing with their tactics, or that I could oppose an editor like WMC not because I have something against him, but because his identity as an environmentalist combined with his aggressiveness here does more harm than good to not only Wikipedia, but also to the goals we happen to share. In other words, I want him to stop not because I disagree with him, but because I agree with him. ATren (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's it precisely. I feel exactly the same way. I buy the science. I have for a long time. But the world isn't taking it seriously. And it's the folk doing the spin control (in the real world) that are wrecking things. The scientific method is supposed to allow for free and open examination of results... when that's interfered with, people start to wonder "what do these people have to hide?" ++Lar: t/c 04:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the folk doing the spin control (in the real world) - you mean people like Tim Ball, Christopher Monckton, Jim Inhofe, Anthony Watts, and Lawrence Solomon? Or are you confused about who is doing the spinning? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is spin control on both sides. Or do you deny that there is any on the other side? ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, there is a whole lot of professional spinning going on on one side, involving everything from think tanks organising "conferences" to politicians and "journalists" issuing bland-faced lies on the state of the science. Of course people try to "control" that misrepresentation - see e.g. this example of "spin control". So sure, there is "some" on either side. But that does not remotely mean its a symmetrical situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and if you don't take it from me, take it from eminent scientists: "Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.[...]We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And when a scientist trys to engage with sceptics as I admire her for doing. Their engagement gets spun across the sceptic blogosphere as support for all of their deepest consiparcies per the recent BLP issues at Judith Curry Polargeo (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is reprehensible. As is the suppression of what Curry said here at WP. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm? Excuse me! Where the devil is the "suppression"? Removing badly sourced and incorrectly quoted content on a BLP is "suppression"? Nice!? Perhaps you may want to extend just a tiny bit of good faith, and ask whether people think that information on Curry's views should be included? I for one believe that it should - but it has to be quoted correctly, in context and be meticulously sourced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That also echo's my personal view of both the outside world (that is, of both Wikipedia and - differently - the scientific community) view and the issues with these articles. The science is sound, and is being tested, refined, and tested again, but the subject is not just the science. Both Lar and I ("...surprise, surprise...!" might be heard muttered) have separately suggested that the current AGW article might be retitled "Science of...", since that aspect dominates the article. I feel, however, that outside of our little world(s) it is the debate generated by the various interested parties that dominates the general public's attention. As a general purpose encyclopedia, rather than a scientific journal, it might be that the point of entry article Global Warming should address this wider consideration with reference to both the scientific consensus and the positions taken in relation to it by the different interested parties. Instead, I see that aspect of the issue marginalised away from the flagship article so that it appears that WP's stance is that AGW is an uncontrovertible fact (which is of course the consensus scientific view, but not so firmly the one recognised by the larger world) which is not in accordance to the WP ethos of scrupulous neutrality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am less concerned about article structure than the overall slant of the text. Some of these articles give the appearance of advocating a position rather than presenting the facts. It's subtle, and I truly believe that someone passionate about this issue would not recognize it, but to outsiders it is obvious. And it happens on both sides. Marknutley has produced some article stubs that exhibited obvious POV problems initially; but once he promoted to article space those issues were quickly corrected, because there are plenty of good editors on the "other side" (there I go again talking about sides ;-)) who immediately spot the POV and correct it. That's the way it's supposed to work, but the imbalance of editors in this topic area has prevented that from happening both ways.
I think this exemplifies the fundamental conundrum of writing neutral articles in a contentious topic area: (1) the most active editors are those who are passionate about the issue, and (2) it is extremely difficult for editors passionate about an issue to write neutrally about that issue. Given these assumptions (which I believe hold true), it is absolutely essential for editors from all sides to work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. That hasn't happened here, and indeed neutral/skeptical editors have been driven off by the contentious atmosphere and uneven enforcement of behavioral policies.
So with that goal in mind, I've tried to mentor some "skeptic" editors who can provide the balancing POV that these articles require. Examples include GoRight, Alex Harvey, Marknutley. In all cases, I had to tell them over and over again, "ignore WMC", but invariably WMC will escalate his aggressiveness beyond any editor's breaking point, because he's untouchable. So here we are: GoRight banned (probably injustly, given the level of hostility of those around him); Alex Harvey burned out; Marknutley close to burnout or ban; Cla68 and Lar (both neutrals by any reasonable standard) attacked as "biased"... and the result is the same few editors have free reign on these articles and the subtle but pervasive POV issues remain. ATren (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Within that context, I really do not think WMC's attitude is the problem - because if he were the only editor who thought that the AGW articles were fundamentally neutral then the consensus would be something else; it is the reasonable - as in conducting themselves and their editing to preferred WP practices - editors who also believe that the viewpoint represented by the articles currently is the most encyclopedic. Given the tactics and advocacy of CC denial it isn't that surprising that there is something of a siege mentality as regards the viewpoint, but it is unhelpful in that "neutral to the other point of view" editors reasonable requests to allow more discourse upon the fact that there is established skepticism and denial of CC/AGW is disallowed on the premise that it gives these opinionaters more weight than the facts they rely upon; not wishing to allow the science to be usurped by political or mercantile considerations. Very worthy, but unrepresentative of the real debate outside of acedemia. Where WMC's, and others, actions are unhelpful is that it feeds this WP:BATTLE mentality and lessens the potential of substantive discussion over the question of npov editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is that the battleground atmosphere combined with uneven behavioral enforcement actually sustains the existing consensus, because neutrals don't want to get involved in such a contentious fight and opposing partisans are removed from the debate. So it's not surprising that all that's left are those who agree with the status quo. If the battleground editors are removed on both sides, then a wider range of editors might get involved and help clean up the subtle POV problems that remain. The argument against this has always been "but if you remove WMC, the articles will go to crap", but that assumes that (a) the articles are already "correct" and therefore any movement away from the status quo will be detrimental, and (b) that the editors remaining will allow the pendulum to swing too far the other way. I disagree with both premises. ATren (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TGL. I do agree with quite a bit of what you say: I think that humans could survive at higher CO2 and know that there were much higher CO2 levels in the past. On the flipside of the "past" bit, though, it is interesting to note that humans evolved in one of the lowest CO2 environments that the Earth has seen in its history. I think that the current concern about CO2 deals quite a bit with sea level rise and water supplies. Lots of people live on the coast, and lots of peoples' water is regulated by storage in and release from glaciers. There are positive feedback loops involved in global warming (ice-albedo being the most commonly talked-about) - without this, the ice age cycle wouldn't be able to be forced by orbital cycles. The runaway stuff is IMO environmentalist scare tactics. Awickert (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given our past interactions you would probably consider me an unlikely ally, but I do admire you for being ballsy enough to take on such an uphill battle. Who knows, maybe something will eventually come of it. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (as said in email) ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to your email. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welfare Industry

[edit]

Yes please do start. --BozMo talk 17:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll pass for now. Perhaps after the RfC is resolved. ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a pleasure for the future. I love Grumpy_Old_Men_(TV_series)
I'm not sure I get the reference. I don't watch TV much at all and am uninterested in most of it, with very limited exceptions. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't get me started on" is a sort of characterisation of Grumpy Old Men in the series. --BozMo talk 18:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that Victor Meldrew (or at least Richard Wilson) is from Greenock? Don't get me started..... dave souza, talk 14:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cadre

[edit]

@Lar (so I would rather no one else replied until at least Lar has). The talk page on the RFC is a bit over-run so since I am trying to work out my opinion on the issue may I make a comment here: In my view a characteristic of a cadre, gang etc is clearly defined edges or membership. The existence of a core in a correlation does not establish a cadre unless there are also edges. Indeed as I am sure you know, cadre comes from the French for a box or frame and is used in French to specifically distinguish between blue and white collar workers, it is a "sharp edged" concept. On Global Warming, whatever correlations exist as far as I can see there are not clear edges. If we start with WMC or Kim and start widening the correlations to demonstrate a cadre you would need to show the list stops whilst the correlations spread. Last time (a couple of years ago) this was done on the Global Warming pages my (fallible) memory found some 35 editors involved in restroring the consensus view with a continuous variation in involvement from lots to just a few. At that time it was easy to draw a line around about 5 skeptics although there were later arrivals after blog campaigns to try to shift the article. Consequently, using words like gang and cadre of the editors in the centre around WMC is unjustified and promotes a battleground mentality. --BozMo talk 07:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I freely cop to not necessarily using the right word, something I've already said. I haven't found the right one yet and welcome suggestions. As you point out this grouping does have amorphous edges. But the defining characteristic, in my view, is not the position taken on the science, or even participation in article editing, although those are ways to find candidates, the defining characteristic is the pile on reflexive defense of editing practices that don't fit with our norms. There is occasional acknowledgment of issues but by and large it's, in my view, tactical. If I'm right about this phenomenon, it's not incivil to point it out. If I can be conclusively demonstrated to be wrong (denial of existence is not demonstration, mind) then I will apologize and retract my statements. As an aside: I've always felt that excusing jurors who seem to have a clue was a bad practice. While I have your ear, I must say I was surprised and dismayed to see you endorse SBHB's view since it's full of distortions of the record. Most of the other endorsers I wasn't surprised about, but you? I thought you knew better. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perhaps it is all words. A considerable part of my unhappiness about your comments derives from some of the words you use (inevitably). Clearly if we can find better words to use instead which match your view better and mean something different to me then my view would revise; but I need time to go through and see what it does if you replace "AGW cadre" with "core contributers" or whatever across the board. SBHB I have to say generally errs on the side of fairness in general so I will have another look. --BozMo talk 18:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please explain my own edits. I am probably not part of this cabal anyway but I am a scientist. I started editing over a year ago. I have not had significant offwiki contact with anyone. That is not to say I haven't had an email, but no more than one from any individual but I have never discussed any "tactics" with anyone and I have a mind of my own. As with any editing I quickly got familiar with those editors who were fighting against idiots (that is actually a soft word for the situation). Sometimes when I get bored with Balkans articles or Antarctic glaciology I have a look at the climate change articles. I see these guys reverting idiots so often that I sometimes join in with a revert and stick a comment on the talkpage. I only ever do this if I totally agree with the revert. I think if you spent five minutes really looking at the editors you would realise that KDP, WMC and SBHB to name just a few are some of the most intelligent people in this area of wikipedia, if not the most intelligent (far more clever than I am) do you really think they are jumping onto the revert button as some sort of "cabal" against some of the editors who are supporting Lar. No in my opinion they are actually defending wikipedia and Lar must in my opinion be a complete non-scientist to not realise this. Polargeo (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So to sum it up. If you see someone has reverted an idiot and the idiot has reverted their silly poorly sourced addition back in. Would it not be natural to try to repair the article? Now by Lar's comments this would be represented as me being part of a conspiracy!!! I cannot help it if sceptics on the whole are incapable of decent additions to wikipedia. I'm not here to nursemaid poor additons even if I agree with them, maybe from newbies but not from people who have been here for months. Polargeo (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't read what I've been saying nearly carefully enough, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec)Where to start? I think perhaps a review of some of your assumptions may be of benefit. There seem to be a few implicit ones about my views that are incorrect:

  • That I don't agree with KDP, WMC and SBHB, et al, about the science. As I've said, repeatedly, I do. While I am a layman in this area I've done enough reading in the topic to be completely convinced there is something serious going on and that in the main it fits what the global scientific consensus is.
  • That it's about the content of the articles. As I've said, repeatedly, I'm satisfied with the general weight given to the mainstream consensus about AGW versus the fringe theories and deniers. My disquiet rather is to do with the emphasis (social and political, vs. science) and about the tendency I see to try to suppress any sort of acknowlegement that there might be loose ends. Getting the names of articles to change to reflect common usage, to pick just one example, is a tooth and claw fight.
  • That I don't think KDP, WMC and SBHB, et al, are "intelligent". I've never said any such thing. I know they are. I just think they're going about "defending the wiki" the wrong way. Suppression and spin control get noticed. They perhaps have gotten so burnt out fighting with the deniers they no longer can tolerate differing opinions in any form, even from allies, about their approach.
  • That I think there is an offwiki coordinated effort here. There might be, but it's not the way to bet. The actions we are seeing are perfectly explainable merely by assuming certain folks watch each others contribs.
  • That I am a "complete non scientist"... this is the most inexplicable claim of all. I'm an engineer but I have considerable scientific training. My BS was going to be in Chem Eng until I switched majors in my senior year to Comp Sci, and I have a Masters as well.
  • That because I am a non scientist I don't realise that "defending wikipedia" at all costs via a scorched earth policy is the right approach. I'm not sure it is. I've expressed doubts, where I've wondered if this problem is in fact so important that we should use a scorched earth policy and overturn the WP principles because if we don't the world isn't going to listen and isn't going to do enough about AGW soon enough to prevent the impending disaster that coastal flooding, agriculture shifts, and other change will bring.

My concern here is that the camps are so hardened that even a natural ally like myself has been put aside because I don't condone the means used to support the needful end. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for me... I do not take issue with any decisions you have made acting as an uninvolved admin, your conversation seems reasonable to me and your opinion in the mix of responses adds value. Looking at the SBHB comments on RFC and elsewhere my concern is primarily that your choice of language is sometimes inappropriate (SBHB gives examples). I do not think that this problem is unique to you, plenty of other people involved in CC use battleground language etc. However, I don't see other people acting as uninvolved who are repeatedly making such personal or judgmental general characterisations outside the confines of specific requests for endorsement (I am sure like Gordon Brown I may have said bigot under my breath a few times too). Trading blow for blow with WMC is not really allowed whilst you are taking this role. I think you need to choose whether to judiciously ignore him and carry on as uninvolved or indulge in "I know your little game", "your gang", "I wondered when you would show up" etc replies. As a sysop on Wikipedia I reckon you just need to take the abuse and smile. Sometimes people even apologise later... --BozMo talk 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Oh and that includes not refers to a cmt as "snarky mockery" [9] even if the comment was of itself unhelpful. Basically that is escalating abuse rather than ignoring it. --BozMo talk 19:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to cop to not being perfect in my discourse. But that comment was snarky mockery and I think not calling people on stuff like that is part of why people get away with it. But ya. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Fruit?

[edit]

Yes, I probably shouldn't point this out, especially now, but I've never been good at shutting up.

I believe you've asked WMC not to refer to you as "old fruit?" If my memory is correct then I believe this is a reference to you (might need to scroll down on the diff/check the edit summary).

I also object to him classifying a little joke as an "ethnic slur" (slurring me as a racist for those who don't actually look at the diff), but I suppose that is par for the course. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally clear who WMC is referring to. I'll have to ask him, I guess. Somehow. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"obviously LHVU / Lar will now need to "narrow" the meaning of slur to exclude this use." It is either a reference to you or Less - I'm sure WMC will be happy to clarify though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that WMC (as most of England [10]) uses old fruit as rhyming slang for "chum" I would be surprised if he was addressing Lar or Less that way, aside the prohibition from American connotation. And the obvious reading from the diff was that it was addressed at himself (since his edit was to narrow down his previous comment). However finding out is clearly the priority now and doesn't look at all like harrasment. --BozMo talk 07:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard the phrase used either endearingly or pejoratively. Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting interpretation of the diff Bozmo and I respect your honest opinion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BozMo, perhaps you're not aware that Lar recently asked WMC specifically not to refer to him by that term [11]. Seems to me that this is more baiting by WMC. But in his defense, WMC can't be expected to be sensitive to what other editors prefer to be called. ATren (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ATren, Yes I know Lar requested not and I agree WMC should not address him that way (I don't know exactly what the offensive meaning is but I understand in the US even words like Fag and Fanny have strange meanings). As I have said where I was brought up "cock" and "cocker" were also terms of affection. But in this particular instance where it did not seem clearly addressed at Lar I think pursuing it is, well, am I allowed to say "pandering to attention seeking"... perhaps not. --BozMo talk 07:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BozMo: It's a reasonable interpretation that it was addressed to me, or to LHvU, or to both of us. It's a less reasonable, but still plausible interpretation that it was addressed to himself. So I asked, in a neutral way, with no prejudgment of response visible in the wording, and I'm prepared to take WMC at his word. Note how Guettarda responded. Including the insinuation that I'm a "skeptic". That is an example of the knee jerk defensiveness from members of this group that I've referred to as being problematic. Go chastise Guetterda. And while you're at it remind him yet again that I'm not a climate skeptic, I'm just skeptical of Guettarda's methods. NOT the science. If you let Guettarda slide without a word, I will be disappointed in you and I will be (slightly) less inclined to take you seriously. YOU have standing to warn him without a charge that you might be baiting. I am perfectly entitled to warn him too, (or even, under the terms of the probation, block him) but I will let you have the opportunity to do it, first. ++Lar: t/c 10:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar, I went to look with pistols drawn and found Guettarda didn't call you a climate sceptic. At worst he implied that you wrongly believed WMC was only rude to climate sceptics. And certainly WMC is fairly rude to me without having called me a sceptic (woolly yes, worse than useless, yes, "bending over backwards to make excuses for the poor dear skeptics".. which I guess given the second reading of fruit is better than bending the other.. no I had better not say that... yes, biased in favour of sceptics, yes having various forms of love fest with various people on his naughty list, yes but not myself a sceptic so far. Anyway as I said, WMC is far too sophisticated IMUO to go against the legit request, and every time he makes it an ambiguous second reading you shouldn't show it getting to you. --BozMo talk 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid most of that analysis made no sense to me. I'm a Michigander. I think WMC ought to just answer the question. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, did not get the connection between you and a Michigander. Perhaps I should have known that. --BozMo talk 19:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the Michigander? I'm afraid your cultural allusion doesn't cross the pond terribly well, do please translate. . dave souza, talk 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me? Why ask me? Ask Guettarda what he meant by "he must be speaking to a "climate sceptic". Probably a Michigander" ... To me the referent seemed fairly obvious. Again, getting WMC to answer a polite question would seem to be a lot better use of everyone's time than all this second and third guessing and casting aspersions. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't know that was where you got it, will do. As for WMC, he doesn't seem to have edited today so it might be more fruitful to show patience. Will sit on hands and wait. . . dave souza, talk 19:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, dave souza, do you think I should take WMC's response here as a "yes I was referring to you"? That's my first guess, but I'd hate to be mistaken about it. He didn't answer directly. Do you think that was appropriate? ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, from this he seems to think it's a case of pot, kettle. Calling others by names they don't like isn't conducive to respectful dialogue. I've learnt something about Michigan, and the obvious pun evidently is old and tiresome by now, so will strike that, apologies for any inconvenience. . . dave souza, talk 12:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes BozMo, I agree. Where is your warning to WMC or Guettarda? You have to start taking a tougher stand against those aligned with WMC. As far as I'm concerned, Lar's RFC has set the standard for "involvement" and "bias" in this probation, and I'm afraid you're not meeting it as long as you continue to defend these indefensible actions while opining so much more strongly against anyone who opposes WMC. And in particular, your (and KC's) support of SBHB's one-sided view in that RFC is (IMO) a strong indicator of not only your own biases, but you inability to work with other admins in this area. I think you should remove yourself entirely from this probation, as should 2/0, KC, and all others who have shown bias. This would not have been my preferred approach here, but after seeing the bogus criticism Lar is getting, it's time all admins were subjected to the same scrutiny. ATren (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My prefered solution would be to get rid of sanctions altogether as I don't think they have helped to improve any articles. But that is unlikely to happen my old fruit (term applies to ATren and is meant in a friendly way as I find him an interesting character). Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right... I do think they (the sanctions) have helped but the cost in time and effort has been dear. Certainly the cost to me (in unwarranted attacks on my character, in time wasted defending against them so far, in time spent in general) has been high. I've focused my limited resources on en on almost nothing else of late. As a side note I think I have to point out that your use of "old fruit", here and now, in this conversation, was injudicious. Even with a disclaimer. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, "injudicious", interesting word. "Judge not, lest ye be judged". . . . dave souza, talk 14:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, have all other problems on Wikipedia and in the world be solved? Does nobody here have anything better to do? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Stephan me old fruitcake. Polargeo (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas fruit means "chum" fruitcake means "nutter/nutcase/nut" which may not be a personal attack in jest but certainly isn't the same thing. --BozMo talk 20:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And off I am to the enforcement page, of course, requesting enforcement against Polargeo for writing it, against Lar, for tolerating such offensive language on his talk page, against BozMo, for explaining it, and against Jimbo, because he started this whole insult machine! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar: you've been repeatedly told that inaccurate and pejorative language like "members of this group" is offensive and you should stop using it. You have repeatedly refused. So please stop being such a delicate flower. If you can't take the heat, don't tell others to leave the kitchen William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please directly answer the direct question you were politely asked, who were you referring to? Once you answer that question, I will be glad to address your other remarks. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Bill, there's no point in making a big deal out of what people call you. ;-) ATren (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William was editing his own request, in his own section, and did what he "suggested". Lar's "question" was baiting - taking an innocuous statement and trying to pick a fight over it. It's pretty simple - stop assuming bad faith. Stop taking everything so personally. Stop trying to pick fights. Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for "Michigander" - come on, I lived in the state of 7 years, I'm married to a 6th generation native. "Michigander" may not be the canonically correct term, but it's common usage. Are you really trying to say that's an offensive term? Guettarda (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Who said anything about it being offensive term? I'm proud to be a Michigander. I just want to know who you were talking about in your remark. As I do with WMC. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With my remark? I was saying that you shouldn't be trying to pick a fight with William, that his comment does not appear to have been aimed at anyone other than himself - certainly not at any group on whose behalf you have have chosen to take offense. Again, read the comment. I have no reason to cast doubt on your statement that you come from Michigan. And I have no more reason to assume that you're a "climate skeptic" than I do to assume you're a creationist. I'm not that generous in my assessment. Guettarda (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you say anything in the first place? Why not just let WMC answer (which he still hasn't)? Why is there so often a reflexive springing to defense when no defense is needed, just honest answers to honest questions? I note that you appear to be casting aspersions of some sort even in your last response. WMC makes a potentially snarky reference to me after he was asked not to use the term, I ask for clarification, you and others come down on me hard, and I'm picking a fight. Right. ++Lar: t/c 10:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the above it looks as though TGL was picking a fight, Lar did what would generally be a reasonable thing to do and asked the question raised by TGL. Lar's tone may have been a bit peremptory and in the circumstances Guettarda tried to defuse what looked at first sight rather like an attack. WMC's rather cryptic response appears to translate as pot, kettle, without either admitting or denying the various interpretations of his edit summary. Much ado about very little, in my opinion. . . dave souza, talk 12:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't WMC answer questions he was asked. Why does he need everyone else to do it? Why can't Guettarda answer questions he was asked? Why does he need everyone else to do it? If you think my tone was peremptory, can you propose a different wording? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you give a toss? Why are you struggling so hard to work out if you've been dissed? By making no objection to ATren's clear delinerate insult above you've made it clear you really don't care, so why bother? Though I admit you're finding it convenient as a shield to avoid answering questions: "but Mummy! I asked first!" William M. Connolley (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The easy and safe assumption is to just assume I had been dissed. But I asked a politely phrased question because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Because I wanted to assume good faith. As to why I persevered... well it's been instructive just how difficult it is to get you to answer a simple politely phrased question. And how much air support you get from the corps. And how many side issues get tossed in to see if they stick. It's amazing really. But since I have your ear... Don't call me old fruit again. You give no evidence of viewing me as a friend so it's an inappropriate term. Don't use it in a way that's ambiguous, as I won't ask again, I'll just assume you're gaming. Is that clear? ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you here Lar. Although I am not at all sure it was directed at you. William comes from the sort of background where he might just call himself old fruit. Coming from England I am aware of the type. Polargeo (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well old bean, if you're going to ignore requests to cease using language like "members of this group", why should I pay any attention to your requests not call you and old fruit? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. You may call me Lar, or Larry Pieniazek, or Mr. Pieniazek. You are not permitted to call me anything else. If I ask you about some reference, to resolve ambiguity and you choose not to answer in an unambiguous way, I will assume that you were referring to me, and I will act accordingly. Is that clear? ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha...ambiguity is resolved against a user. I see you are a big fan of WP:AGF, not to mention the good old presumption of innocence - well, I guess that went out of style with Gitmo anyways. I'll have to say that I find your statement unacceptable, and "I will act accordingly" if necessary, "Mr. Pieniazek". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect you to freely admit that you were inventing fantasies; but thank you for clarifying William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to treat that as "I have read your warning". ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sad but true he is trying to lump together all scientifically literate editors of climate change articles in a very dismissive way so that he can dismiss them en masse. A very sorry day for wikipedia but Lar is a pro you have to admit it. Polargeo (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A pro at what? Or was that a joke? ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your accusation that I've insulted you (for a comment which was obviously just a lighthearted joke in an attempt to lighten the mood here), I will quote directly from a previous comment on this page: "please stop being such a delicate flower. If you can't take the heat, don't tell others to leave the kitchen". And this will be my last comment on the matter. ATren (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is going to sound tired but an uninvolved admin can pick a fight with whoever he wants to, because uninvolved admins are always having to deal with these types so picking a fight with them comes under the definition of normal admin contact, Polargeo (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, have all other problems on Wikipedia and in the world be solved? Does nobody here have anything better to do? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note - am I totally off base? (Open to anyone really)

[edit]

I feel quite strongly that Bozmo has changed his interpretation of the rules and I think the evidence I presented was clear, but I'm open to a reasonable alternative explanation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to go with "yes", you're at least mostly off base. I erred in inviting you without getting clearance for it first. But more importantly you're generally not to discuss the topic area, and that's rather a broad prohibition. Cut BozMo some slack please. ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cut him some slack? He immediately proposed a 3 month extension of my ban after I commented on his talk page instead of filing an RfC. He flat out said that the probation area doesn't apply to user talk pages - when WMC's probation came up and was amended, but with me he seems to think a 3 month extension is reasonable over a single comment on his talk page I honestly considered a courtesy to him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that comment was the problematic area... rather it's the arguing about the topic itself. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying - I'm being punished for arguing that the probation isn't being applied consistently? I made the comment, he deleted it, and then immediately proposed a 3 month ban, while bringing up things that had nothing to do with the CC probation (e.g. comments on WMC's talk page for example). TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the issue was that you've been arguing about the topic itself (arguing about whether AGW is real or not) I could be misreading it. I'm late for bed, I'll try to take a look in the AM. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@tgl. Here, by invitation you are welcome to talk. You are not, in my view, being punished. The prohibition is because you currently are clearly failing to recognise inappropriate behaviour and it appears a ban the only way of stopping you doing something which is bad for the project. This conversation is an example of behaviour which is unhelpful. It has been explicitly and clearly explained to you that there was no change in interpretation of the rules; user talk pages are not part of the CC probation in general but they were but of the area where you were banned from discussing Climate Change. But even though this has been patiently explained in a number of places you carry on raising it in other places and make bold accusatory comments about it. This page is the third (or more than third possibly) place where you are repeating this same point. If you put it in one place then someone will answer it and any concerned party is free to read your complaint, the reply and draw their own conclusions. If you put it all over Wikipedia then you leave editors the choice of looking like we ignore serious but false allegations or making them reply in each place. That is a nuisance and a form of forum shopping. --BozMo talk 06:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Bozmo, I brought it up to you and your response was to immediately delete it and then propose to extend my ban for 3 months - that sort of retaliation seemed quite draconian and I repeat that you need to consider your biases more carefully (and I'm not the only one who has said as much). With WMC, his prohibition was specifically stated to include user talk pages, even his user talk page, and 2over0 amended that after it came to his attention that he'd violated the letter of his sanction - which, of course, meant no punishment for violating his sanction, and certainly not a 3 month ban like you are proposing for me.
I have yet to hear an rational explanation of why the climate change probationary boundaries are extended in my case, beyond their stated scope, to be as harsh as possible and yet amended to prevent punitive measures when WMC's name comes up. In fact, if there was any sense of decency in this place then you all would've warned WMC for bringing up a clearly retaliatory RfE that has done nothing more than to cause the drama it was so clearly intended to summon. My actions were clearly not disruptive prior to WMC's stirring of the pot yet again and sanctions are meant to be preventative not punitive - or is that only when convenient? TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't worked out how long to extend your ban for yet. AFAICT .yYou had already placed the same type of allegation [12] in another location which you knew I frequented after you posted on my talkpage and had got an answer on my talkpage and before I deleted it from my talkpage and suggested extending the ban. The other stuff has already been answered elsewhere. --BozMo talk 06:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a link to the post that I made because I thought it was quite relevant that your definition of probationary scope appears to change depending on whose sanction it is. Also, while certainly not sanctionable, your recent creation and adding of the "old fruit" template, shows precisely where your sympathies lie and exactly why you are incapable of acting neutrally in this area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You posted more than one link [13] and repeated the essential claim. As for the rest, I think you have already had the answer on the distinction between uninvolved and neutral. In fact I am not going to go back and find it but Lar expressed it rather neatly. And I am allowed to form a view on the value of editors and their contributions. --BozMo talk 07:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! I'm condemned! I pointed out to WMC, who was complaining that I might not get sanctioned, that he has had his own sanctions retroactively changed in order to avoid sanction. I find it incredible curious that nearly everytime I respond to WMC or to you, that you find that as evidence that I should be banned for a few more months. I'm still waiting on how you feel your actions are prevenative and not punitive. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation already above [14] --BozMo talk 10:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC statement

[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I modified my statement since you signed it. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Don't stop work, you're doing great stuff and I appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 10:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input on an "editor correlation" algorithm

[edit]

To Lar and all his TPW: the discussion of editor correlation has inspired me to write a tool to measure such correlation. But I want to solicit input as to how to measure it. I believe the current method being discussed on the RFC talk page is too blunt, because it only measures when editors edit the same page. I think a finer-grained tool would better identify correlation. Below are my initial thoughts on a proposed algorithm, and I'd welcome input.

Primarily I think two factors need to be taken into account when evaluating edits for correlation: (1) whether the edits occurred in the same section, and (2) how close in time the edits occurred. So two edits that occurred in the same section on the same day are highly correlated; in the same section but 3 days apart are moderately correlated; in the same section but 2 weeks apart are slightly correlated; in a different section or different page, not correlated.

This last point would (e.g.) eliminate edits to different sections of a project page like AN/I or the CC probation enforcement page. "Same section" in this context is the same top level section, because often subsections are arbitrary.

So I'm thinking, for every edit X, do the following: 1. Collect all edits to the same top-level section of the same page, starting two weeks earlier and ending two weeks later. 2. For each unique editor in that set of edits, find the edit from that editor which is closest in time to edit X. Ignore all other edits from that editor. Call this edit Y. 3. Calculate the absolute time delta between the two edits, |timestamp(X) - timestamp(Y)| and normalize to the range (0.0,1.0) where 1.0 represents edits with the same timestamp. Call this C(X,Y). For a two week range, this is equal to 1.0-(|timestamp(X) - timestamp(Y)|)/(2 weeks)). This value represents the correlation of those two edits using the time/section heuristic.

Now, for each edit X there is a set of edits Y, each corresponding to a unique editor, and a set of correlations C(X,Y). To calculate the overall correlation between two editors A and B, navigate over editor A's entire contribution history (X), collect all correlated edits from editor B (Y) and sum C(X,Y).

This produces a raw correlation for editor B with respect to A. To normalize, divide by A's edit count, and what results is a number between 0.0 and 1.0 where 0.0 is no correlation and 1.0 is complete correlation.

Does this sound reasonable? Input welcome. ATren (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on the purpose of correlation. No one could dispute that this is a statistic as in a function of data. What is critical is what the correlation is intended to represent. Obviously not alignment of views, since opposing parties move in the same herd pattern triggered by recent changes and watch lists. Would it give anything stronger than saying correlation of pages on people's watch list? The people at project Wikispam did some work on identifying user patterns a few years back when I frequented there but it is a bit harder than one might imagine. Personally I would be interested in edit counts on wider problem areas (e.g. BLPs in Climate Change which seem to be a particular problem). I am toying with starting a BLPs in Climate Change Wikiproject or similar but I imagine it would get filled with the same trash as every other talk page around here. Speed to revert or percentage of reverts by different parties might also be of interest. --BozMo talk 18:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less interested in how the statistic is derived, and more interested in how you intend to validate its meaning. I think that the proliferation of unvalidated statistical tools and claims is counterproductive. In a best case, it unnecessarily complicates intuitive patterns. In a worst case, it actively buttresses incorrect beliefs by providing them with quantitative trappings. Applying statistical tools without a systematic and rigorous system of interpretation is notoriously apt to lead intelligent people to erroneous conclusions. MastCell Talk 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respect this concern, but I don't necessarily believe it's a reason not to pursue it. In particular, I don't think it would be worse than what we have (as you fear) because what we have right now is almost nothing -- just editor impressions and intuitions on long term interactions, something humans aren't very good at. At least this would give us a statistical measure of global editor correlation based on a reasonable definition of local edit correlation. It might even be useful in sock puppet investigations to identify potential puppets of a suspected sock master. But I do respect your concern about over-emphasizing the results without properly validating what the correlations mean. ATren (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using "article overlap" is not too helpful -- mainly because some areas have vastly greater numbers of article which can overlap compared with other areas. Looking at many measurements (including "known alternate personas") does show a strong correlation with regard to overlaps on user talk pages (the number of such is pretty much a constant as far as weighing different contributors). People with 300K edits tended to overlap on articles anywhere from under ten to several hundred -- but on user talk pages, few overlapped on more than ten (deducting JImbo as an overlap because so many have posted on it). Even people who were active in the same area did not show appreciable UT overlap. People who overlap on UT pages to a far greater degree may easily be found in such groups as EEML - which is the point of the exercise. When people with under 1K edits show up on the same ten UT pages, it is quite suspect, indeed. Thus this tool is very powerful on low edit count editors, and where the people are active admins, an allowance should be made on edits on UT pages of frequent AN/I denizen etc. And, quite nicely, normalization is not the problem that it is on figuring article overlaps <g>. Collect (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we're wishlisting, I'd like to see more than just time correlation. It's problematic behavior that is (if you'll excuse the expression) the problem. So it's patterns and keywords that are needed, to give things to look at, and then humans need to look at them. For example, take a look a few sections up. I asked WMC a simple question on his talk, and instead of an answer from him, the response was several other editors answering in ways that attacked me, and then a swarming here on my talk that seems to be trying to make me out the bad guy for trying to see what WMC was trying to say. If we assume that sort of thing isn't acceptable, then just noting correlation of edits won't tell you who said what or which edits were more problematic, because other people are interspersed. This tool would help but it's not going to take the place of slogging through edits. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness, a swarming here of other editors attacking you! The problem with watchlists is that people notice things and are inclined to add their tuppenceworth. Adding to that is a bit of attempted humorous teasing going on in all directions, some of which fell rather flat :-/ Unfortunately, your statement that "The easy and safe assumption is to just assume I had been dissed" points to escalation rather than shrugging off misunderstandings – better to be vain like me and assume that they can't possibly mean it. I don't think your questioning of WMC was unreasonable, but then I don't think it's worth getting all that worried about what he meant by a rather ambiguous remark. I've avoided joining in the fun in your talk page for quite a while, sorry that this caught my eye when I was trying to find a way forward. Will say no more, let me know if you want to discuss anything. . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC consistently disses me. So that's the safe way to bet. But I chose to assume good faith and ask. I'm not that worried about it, since for the most part, the baiting you guys subject me to on a regular basis doesn't rattle me much. But it's been an instructive experience. Textbook, even. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What tool did you use to determine all of the scientific statements you are making - above, you state "strong correlation with regard to overlaps." What was the correlation coefficient, and how was it calculated? What distribution of editing pattern did you assume? How did you deal with the network effect (edits to talk:blah, user talk:blah and blah are networked)? I'd like to see some metholodgy behind these monumental conclusions that everyone is so willing to draw. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) @Collect: But that's why I suggested a time-bounded-article-section-overlap metric, which might be less noisy than a blunt articles-edited-in-common metric, because it's likely a better predictor of when editors are involved in the same debate. ATren (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time-bounded intersections on user talk pages is apt to be a very powerful measure. And, to a lesser extent, article talk page intersections (that is, where a group actually has the maximum "power") though it would have to be normalized for the number of related articles in the universe studied. Unnormalized counts of simple article overlap is a weak measure, IMHO, as (has been stated) ornithology enthusasts are apt to overlap on a whole bunch of birds. Collect (talk)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

[edit]

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Previously, I was not substantially concerned about your actions with respect to CC, as you can see from the summaries I had endorsed in your RFC. However, I am now strongly concerned. Cla68 stated that "Usually, article blanking and redirecting against consensus is considered obvious vandalism and doesn't fall under any revert restrictions." This, of course, is totally at odds with policy and practice - in other words, Cla68 is not a little bit wrong. As opposed to explaining WP:VANDTYPES to Cla68, which clearly states "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism ... where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary," and WP:NOTVAND which clearly states "Some users ... repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such," you instead supported his mistkaen understanding of policy, writing "I think that there is a good case to be made that reverting blanking isn't edit warring, and that the edits were justified." As you are well aware, justified edit warring is edit warring, and is not acceptable. The only edit warring that is policy complient is reverting obvious vandalism and violations of the BLP policy. Please confirm that you understand this edit, while probably edit warring and a bad idea, is not "vandalism." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I suggest you don't even respond to this. I saw the same thing: Cla was reverting a bad edit, and he got caught up in the enforcement. As evidenced in the RFC, you have significant support for your activities here as long as you don't respond to provocation. So don't respond. ATren (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ADMIN, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." I'm asking Lar to confirm he's read and understands the policies on vandalism. That's all. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar explicitly recused from this action. This is a non-issue. ATren (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar recused but still expressed an opinion on the talkpage as a non-admin. An opinion that went against policy and attempted to get his biggest supporter off a block. Still when he returns to enforcement as an uninvolved admin my new name for Lar will be Teflon Lar. Polargeo (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it won't. --BozMo talk 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No of course it won't but it illustrates my point. Polargeo (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which point is that? ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite: I don't agree that blanking is always vandalism. It often is not very good editing, and often ought to be promptly undone and the editor doing the blanking counseled, but vandalism is very strictly/narrowly defined, as you and I are both aware. I didn't spot Cla saying it *was* vandalism or I would have commented in disagrement with that, as I have to Marknutley in the past. I can think Cla was invalidly blocked and that his restoration was appropriate, without characterizing the removal itself as vandalism. It wasn't vandalism. Just bad editing by a long term contributor presumably acting in good faith. I apologize for any confusion and hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

[edit]
  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edification

[edit]

You might wish to examine [15] where I think that there might conceivably be a pattern. Collect (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically are you accusing me of, sir? Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I suspect there is no accusation. It seems as if Collect "might be" a <Censored to avoid WP:NPA problems> and that he "might" want to suggest something unseemly, but also wants the option to backpedal whenever challenged. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I guess, but I'd prefer to be informed as to exactly what I'm being accused of so I can avoid future behavior that is problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of probable socks, not all indef blocked yet so it may be a helpful list. --BozMo talk 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are you alledging I am a sockpuppet of WMC, Guettarda, Tony Sidaway, or KillerChihuahua? I'm honored, I guess, but as you may or may not be aware I was busted for sockpuppetry some time ago and none of those editors were implicated at all. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You? Now that would make reality harder to believe than fiction. I agree Collect is just being mischevious but has unearthed a good lot of accounts to review for blocking. --BozMo talk 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what exactly you are talking about? Start from the basics - what accounts, exactly, has he unearthed? Where did he do this unearthing? Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tool he used is incapable of being used for inference, not least because post hoc analysis can only be used to generate hypotheses not to test them. Therefore I neither know nor am concerned about the point being made. However he has produced a list of accounts on the page he linked to which have done a small number of edits to climate change articles, effectively. A small number of global warming edits matches the pattern of one of our socks and gives me some accounts to trawl through. --BozMo talk 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I am being accused of editing user-talk pages, per the accuser. I plead guilty. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Raw nerves being hit? No accusation is made from the statistics from MZM's tools. I am, moreover, bemused by the reactions. Collect (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect cannot be trusted to prove anything. Who on earth can trust an investigator with a clear agenda? Anyone who does is extremely gullible. Polargeo (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An investigator with a clear agenda? Where have I seen one of those before? Really, I have no time for this today, and owe a longer answer to a few points raised elsewhere but that's just too much to let go by, Polargeo. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me precisely what my agenda is? As for asserting that the agenda can somehow fake statistical results from that toll used -- MZM asserted that the results are, indeed, accurate. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The technical accuracy of statistical data is separate from the validity of the inferences drawn from those data. I think people are questioning the latter, not the former. I'm sure we can all think of instances where an individual's agenda has impacted the conclusions they draw from raw statistical data. In any case, given the recent mania for unvalidated quantitative tools on Wikipedia (which is not limited to the climate-change arena), How to Lie with Statistics is useful reading. Not that I think anyone is "lying", only that the book details very common intentional and unintentional pitfalls in the incautious use of statistical tools. MastCell Talk 21:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had quite enough applied mathematics courses <g>. Examine the talk page for the RFC/Lar for discussion about empirical examinations for 20 users with edits over 30K, and seeking maximum number of intersections in the UT space. Collect (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell: True enough. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater in your haste to counteract overuse of stats. Statistical analysis can at least give us things to look at, I see that in my work alll the time. An example from WP is Mantamoreland's socking... it was statistical analysis that finally brought those few brave souls that had been pointing out for years that there was socking going on in from the cold. Despite what his many defenders said. Fundamentally, I know what I see. And so do many other people. No amount of denial from folk can counteract the patterns of behaviour those folk engage in. THAT said, you can fool all of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's generally considered rude to take a section that links my username prominently (its the first one up above) and then state "No amount of denial from folk can counteract the patterns of behaviour those folk engage in." Please detail what behavior specifically you se me engaging in so that I can fix my editing, or specifically exclude me from the aspersions that you are casting around. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran a scan of all the section headings on this page, and none seem to contain your username. So I may not be clear on what you mean there. As for your behavior, do you consider it perfect? Where do you think you might improve? ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=3&user1=Hipocrite" My behavior is not perfect. I need to learn to suffer fools more gladly. Hipocrite (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, I know what I see - you should take a look at http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/grafs/demos/15.html in that case. And yes, statistical analysis can be very useful. I've not seen any valid analysis in the CC probation arena so far - Collect's attempts here are certainly simply unfounded noise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's tagline

[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you participated in a 2005/2006 discussion and straw poll on whether or not the tagline at the top of all Wikipedia articles should be changed from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know if you're still interested in this issue or not, but this exact change has been proposed once again, this time at the Village pump, and there is currently an RFC (Request for Comment) on the subject where it is being discussed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Calm, and It's Collegiate...

[edit]

Hopefully I won't get whomped for this, but he said it was okay. Besides, even after repeated requests to desist posting to a talk page, posts continued. I'm amazed, and waiting patiently for some answers. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Jack wants people to be nice to him, he needs to be nice to them too. While I find the whole thicket of who can post on which talk page rather ... confusing, I think it best to try to abide to the best of one's ability, subject only to some very limited exceptions. If WHL doesn't want Jack on her page, he should stay off. Not sure what else to say, LMK if that didn't clear up the question. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good; thanks, Lar! :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, great! ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BozMo?

[edit]

Your comments on the probation page need to be revised following an outbreak of sanity William M. Connolley (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that sanity includes Stephan Schulz and Polargeo commenting in the admin section as uninvolved! Cla68 (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More sane that Lar abrogating the right to move other peoples comments William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"abrogating the right" ... I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. You have many unanswered questions, why not answer some of those if you lack other things to occupy your time productively? ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions at the CC probation

[edit]

Revert (your move of my comment), remove (your comments), or reply to [16], please. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an uninvolved admin by any stretch of the imagination. Stop commenting in that section of enforcement requests, please. Or I shall have to be very cross. As for an answer to your question, I don't think it admits of a civil answer, other than "have you stopped beating your wife yet", and I decline to be baited. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist on a more "polite" version: How do you think your opinion on my involvement trumps several uninvolved editors opinion on your RfC? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is about you, not me. You cannot claim to be uninvolved under any reasonable definition. Your question is a nonsequitur. But even if it was relevant, "the opinion of several" is not consensus. Even if they all were uninvolved too. Which mostly, they are not. You can try to push me out, but so far you are failing and your efforts make you look bad, not me. You may want to take that into account. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly you're not alledging that ex-arbitor Casliber is involved? How about True_Pagan_Warrior, whoever the fuck that is? Rami R? Cirt? Cardamon? Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mostly" being a key word there. I haven't examined the work of those folks to make any determination but would not be surprised to find at least one person who is involved, and at least one among the uninvolved who just generally bears me animus and is happy to pile on on general principle. As has happened before, to me and others. It happens all the time. And certainly there are some who knee jerk support my view as well. That happens all the time too. Which is why consensus isn't just nosecounting. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I still don't understand why you priblidged and important admins think you have special discussion powers and use your own magic section to discuss things. In fact... Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact... I have no idea how this connects to my comment it is in reply to. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say "consensus isn't nosecounting," but you prevent mere users from engaging in discussion, leading to a stagnant "admin-only" discussion that is moribund - you, however, are empowered by moribund discussion (if there was healthy discussion and debate, you'd be marginalized), so you apparently, given your revert, support it. Shocker. Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but do you really claim that "either they are involved, or they just generally bear me animus and are happy to pile on on general principle"? I have a hard time inventing something more WP:TRUTHy than that if I tried. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"At least one" being the operative phrase there. Wanna bet against that? Note also the inclusion of the opposite direction, "some who knee jerk support my view as well". Side issue. The main issue is YOUR posting in the uninvolved admin section. Don't let it happen again, please. Or I shall be very very cross. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument above is just vacuous noise? So what about the several uninvolved editors in good standing left over after you eliminate the one? And just to warn you - if you become cross, I can always escalate to crucifix! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're not addressing the substance. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I feel the same about you. You think I'm involved. I think you are involved. I have several uninvolved editors at your RfC agreeing with me. You have ATren, apparently. I have no problem with you contributing at the probation - I think your opinions are wrong, and sometimes borderline ridiculous, but that's what we get in an open society. I have a problem with you contributing while maintaining you are uninvolved when you come to the area with a clear, predetermined bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, stop responding to this trollishness. ATren (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

[edit]

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xenotalk 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GS/CC/RE/#Lar, NuclearWarfare, The Wordsmith, Polargeo

[edit]

I have noted in the above enforcement request that the admin-only results section is for results, not for threaded discussion. If you wish to enage in threaded discussion, you are directed to do so where the plebians are able to respond to you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to hash this out, as the scheme we've been using seems to work well enough. You are not helping matters. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree we need to hash this out, as the scheme you've been using seems to fail with almost 100% certainty. You are not helping matters. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you are not helping matters at all. You should not even be involved in the discussion. Polargeo (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

You seem to be edit warring on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Please remember, and obey, WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a pleasure to interact with you, WMC. You have many unanswered questions, why not answer some of those if you lack other things to occupy your time productively? Because hectoring me about 3RR is not a productive use of your time. (a review of our respective block logs and the blocks in this area might be constructive) ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this before closing

[edit]

[17] I think two points need to be considered before closing that request; I put it in the admin section to get your attention but it was moved, and I just want to make sure you see it before closing. Thanks. ATren (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:NewdelrevUCFD

[edit]

Template:NewdelrevUCFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment/Climate change probation

[edit]

I have started working on a Request for comment on the Climate change general sanctions to follow through on the opinions rendered in the establishment discussion that the probation should be reviewed after a few months; the working draft is at User:2over0/GSCC RfC. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate if you would review the statement of concern with an eye to quickly bringing uninvolved editors up to speed. I would like to take this live by the weekend. This is an open invitation, and you should feel free to edit the statement as you see fit and notify any editors you think would be interested. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, I will take a look and see what I can do. It does seem time for a mid course review, all right. As for notifying other editors, you just notified about 350 or so (last I checked) by posting here. :) Some of course will run screaming in the other direction. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore

[edit]

Please restore article Edgars Portnojs... more info you can see here... --Dark Eagle (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and in addition you can restore this too. (the same reason / Latvian) --Dark Eagle (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can userify them for you and you can work on them to address the issues that caused their deletion. You could then move them back to mainspace once all was well. Would that do? ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree... but what userify really mean? --Dark Eagle (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means put it in your user space. I will leave you a note when I'm done and you'll see. ++Lar: t/c 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok..) --Dark Eagle (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And.... done. I have restored the articles and moved them to User:Dark Eagle/Aleksandrs Ivanovs and User:Dark Eagle/Edgars Portnojs.... work on them till you think they will pass notability tests (review our policies or ask for help if you need it) and then move them back to articlespace. If you need help moving them back please ask. Please do not move them by copying the text and creating a new article. LMK if you need further help. ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete this please?

[edit]

User:ATren/WMCSpeak. Thanks. ATren (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think The Wordsmith got it for you already? ++Lar: t/c 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks to both of you. ATren (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Review_of_Lar.27s_block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many bites at the apple did you need? ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The snake and Prometheus are two of my heros. I'd eat that fruit over and over again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my meaning, you're only supposed to get the one. There appear to be three sections now. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your timeline is off. ATren requested a review of 2/0's unblock. I requested a review of your block. 2/0 was late ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A block/unblock pair do not need two separate reviews, much less 3. Sorry if that is lost on you, but it's all the same incident. Three bites at the apple. Two too many. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

[edit]

Okay, request posted. If we can de-escalate this as civilly as possible, I would appreciate it. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand, apparently two people are faster than I am. Sorry about that. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have in mind? Accusing me of various and sundry (as you did in your long post of 20:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC) ) may not be the most effective way to de-escalate matters. I've not cast such wide ranging aspersions on you, although I could have. Instead I've said I think you are trying hard even if you're wrong, and I've lauded your starting the RfC on the overall CC effectiveness. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am hoping for a nice simple Lar, you are too involved, try not to do that again or even tsk, tsk, 2/0, try not to undo blocks without discussion. I think you were wrong with that block, but it requires a bit of history to say why. If you think I am over the line anywhere, I would be happy to take a look with an eye to amending. Can we start with agreeing that once I unblocked it was imperative to seek review somewhere? - 2/0 (cont.) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am placing this here, since last time I looked Guy had archived the discussion and this gets a lot of views from people not involved in CC Probation; unblocking with 16 minutes to go of an 1 hour block sends out a clear message - that you consider the block was abusive or excessive. For all the material difference it would have made to WMC, allowing the block to run out while a discussion was initiated over the propriety of the sanction would have been the neutral path to take. Better would have been immediately reblocking for the alleged disruption, taking ownership of the block, while still being able to raise the issue of involvement. As for uninvolved, since you are also acting as an "uninvolved admin" in the CC probation enforcement I think you should not have been the person to perform the unblock in any event, you have endangered the relationship between the admins where discussion has been permitted some latitude as regards suggestions and opinions presented. You have also provided a notion of respectability for those whose claims of bias against Lar (and, to be absolutely clear, me) has now resulted in an admin undoing the actions of another when the sanctioned party had very clearly made a provocative edit, and summary, designed to get a reaction. Some wide eyed innocent at ANI has even suggested that Lar no longer carries out sanctions within CC Probation space - unaware that he has not. Ever. Your actions here have likely increased the perception of division between admins favouring one side over another; an accusation leveled at Lar and me simply because we were prepared to look at the actions of all "sides" of the editing disputes, and those whose actions were previously apparently immune to sysop review and rebuke found themselves being placed under the same scrutiny as had previously those of a skeptic editing related viewpoint. They have not cared for it, and have made continuous efforts to have their accusations of bias stick. Apparently, some of it has. Now, you may have to endure some little complaint that you are a WMC apologist who will find reason to unblock even when that editor was clearly disruptive and antagonistic. I feel sorry for you, since I know that crap like that eventually does start to pall - but not as sorry as I am for everyone who now has to admin the Probation page, now that the unity of the "uninvolved admins" has been torn apart. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second this 2/0. Note that before the ANI discussion was closed (I don't know why it was closed so quickly) the few comments left were fairly clear that you shouldn't have unblocked. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Cla: Err no. If anything, the balance was the other way: against Lar's block. We can count, if you dispute that. Which brings to: @LHVU: what has torn apart the "uninvolved" stuff is lar's refusal to admin his involvement and shelter behind an overly restrictive defn of same William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do not count noses, we seek consensus. The block was neither sustained nor repudiated. Rather, it was undone by someone that some now characterize as an apparent ally of yours. What I find most ironic is that you yourself moved something by someone else earlier that same day, so it's not like you didn't know you were placing that material in the wrong place. It looks like a deliberately provocative move on your part to do, and then redo when questioned, what you did. Deliberately provocative moves, or ones that appear so, and for which no good and direct explanation is forthcoming when asked, will earn you blocks. At least some of the time anyway. You might want to keep that in mind, and explain yourself instead of just removing comments. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely about counting noses. But note how you only said that when the count was against you: when Cla said the count was in your favour, you felt no need to not-count. As to "move": yes indeed, that is the key word. As an experienced admin, you no doubt read Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. (emphasis added). You don't get to chose ot disregard that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a provocative act on your part, and I suspect you know it full well. I suggest you not provoke or bait anyone. That's the more important point here. Provoke, and you will find yourself blocked from time to time, even if you get away with it some of the time. Let me know if that's not clear. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself in total agreement with LHvU's response to 2/0. The discussion was closed too quickly. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I was referring to the body of admins that had recently inhabited the "uninvolved admin" sections of the Probation enforcement request page - including those that had edited CC related articles but met the definition of uninvolved per the criteria noted in the Probation notice; which Lar has consistently met - rather than the meaning of uninvolved. It does so help if comments are read carefully, and the context understood, does it not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find that rhetorical questions are generally a symptom of... rhetoric. Don't you? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC: Please make your point plainly, or not at all. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find rhetorical questions a useful device for making a comment or point in the form of a question, since any answer is obvious and therefore not necessary. As any comment made in the expectation of no response is thus rhetoric then, yes, it is the essence of rhetoric. Still, the point is there to be seen. Isn't it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interjection by Stephan Schulz

[edit]
Comments like "I could have escalated this further, see if I do!" are not helpful. I suggest you strike the "although I could have" part. I don't know if you are aware of it, but at least to me you appear to make a lot of comments like the above that look like subtle (or not-so-subtle) attempts at intimidation. "I walk silently, but look, here is my big stick! I haven't really unpacked it, but it's there. Better put your small stick away, not matter if you need it for walking! Really!" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you as good at taking advice as you are at giving it? Let me know. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. But that does not mean that my advice is bad. On the contrary, actually. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very few people set out thinking "hmm, I think I'll give some bad advice today". And yet, much bad advice is given nonetheless. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoosh. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be blunt. Stephan Schulz, you lack standing to give me any behavioral advice. Not while you use my username as a derisive and divisive "unit of measure", among the other snarky and catty tactics you employ. Look to the beam in your own eye before you comment on the motes in those of others. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I think the approach Stephan and some others have advocated here is the one known as, "Thank you sir, I'll have another." So, if someone says you don't write content, and you point to a featured article, and someone deletes your response, then you should simply say, "Thank you sir, I'll have another." Or if an admin with a long history of involvement in a topic area summarily undoes your administrative action while falsely claiming that you are involved, then you should not point this out, or even mention that you could argue the point, but simply say, "Thank you sir, I'll have another." Or if someone comes along and tries to spin your conciliatory responses as "baiting" or "intimidation," in the face of all basic rationality, then you should not respond at all other than to say, "Thank you sir, I'll have another." At least that's how I read it. Mackan79 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well kind of I don't know

[edit]

Hi Lar. I think I should say something about the consistency of Lar does not act ouside of consensus, which you signed, versus the recent closing a probation item on ATren and block of WMC (which got overturned). The problem is I am not quite sure what to say. I guess I would say you should feel free to act decisively but then you shouldn't say you never will or something like that. I think I would have preferred you not to be the blocking admin on WMC FWIW. Sorry about the U turn on WMC article ban on Singer by the way. I am still a bit inclined to the view the Singer article in particular would be better without WMC involvement but cannot quite see adequate reasons basis exactly the diffs presented. And the "WP would be better without abc involvement" test gives a rather long list of abcs whom I am not entitled to ban on that basis, alas. --BozMo talk 12:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit getting chivvied into acting on ATren. Go talk to Hipocrite on that. But consensus did exist, I think, for that close. As for the block, it was a good block and should have been sustained. 2/0 was out of line to undo it. But in the end a clear consensus for it didn't exist (nor did a consensus against it or a consensus to sustain the overturn). So what would you have me do? ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No clue what I am agendaless. I have given up trying to see a way out. But I am encouraged by the declared outbreak of peace between ATren and WMC. --BozMo talk 06:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. As for the topic, I'm not sure either. There seem to be folk asking that we abandon our consensus driven approach and switch to a "whoever shows up first" one, which I think is generally wrong. So I guess all I can say is "I'll keep what you say in mind" and leave it at that? ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "acting outside of consensus," "acting against consensus" and "boldly taking actions that will be demonstrated to have consensus." Lar has not acted "against" consensus. Acting "outside" of consensus is acceptable - per WP:BRD. Boldly taking actions that will be demonstrated to have consensus is acceptable per WP:SILENCE. Hamstringing people from fixing things because 6 other people haven't "fix this thing" is unwiki. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Userfy a Deleted Page [Alcatraz Media, Inc]

[edit]

Hello Lar,

A page I created Alcatraz Media, Inc. was removed by speedy deletion, and I wish to have a copy of the deleted page sent to me.

Thanks!

traz123 05.19.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traz123 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done at User talk:Traz123/deletedpage --BozMo talk 13:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traz123 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cenarium/involvement

[edit]

Could you point me to the edits you mentioned here? I don't recognize Cenarium's name, and skimming his last 500 article/talk contribs I was unable to find edits to climate-change related articles. Well, that's not quite true - I found this, from about a year ago, but you can't possibly have meant to point to that as any sort of "involvement". Anyhow, my glance through his contribs was pretty cursory and it's possible/likely I missed something, so I just wanted to ask you which edits you had in mind. MastCell Talk 16:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found another one: [18]. So that's one reversion of blanking vandalism and one janitorial removal of a misapplied talk space template from article space. I'm aware that Lar has a very strict definition of involvement, but that seems to be a little bit too much to have consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick wikistalk, saw some overlaps, and didn't dig further. Which is why I said (paraphrasing) not entirely uninvolved, but I didn't see that as a block to commenting. You, and MastCell, on the other hand are pretty clearly involved, and heavily so. In case you were wondering. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite a degree of curiosity about your belief that I'm "heavily" involved, I'd prefer not to change the subject. Since a more detailed review of Cenarium's contributions does not support your initial impression that he is "involved", perhaps you'd be willing to amend your comment? MastCell Talk 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's accurate enough as is, since I said "not entirely uninvolved". ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No definition of "involvement" ever propagated on this site would classify those two edits as involvement on any level. The most current definition specifically excludes "minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias" from consideration. Are there other edits by Cenarium which do fulfill policy-based criteria for involvement? Since involvement has been a bone of contention in the recent past, I would prefer we be clear. MastCell Talk 18:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I would prefer heavily involved people stopped trying to paint me as involved when I'm not. We can't always have everything we want, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're unhappy about that. However, I don't understand why that prevents you from clarifying your assertions about others. MastCell Talk 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's accurate enough as is, since I said "not entirely uninvolved". You may disagree and feel it needs further clarification. OK, noted. Was there anything else on this minor point? Beams and motes. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, beams and motes was sort of my point. You're unhappy when people throw around charges that you're "involved", so one would think that you would be circumspect in applying the term to others. In any case, I have nothing else novel to say on the topic, so there's no point in belaboring it further. MastCell Talk 20:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the comment was wasted on you then as you've got things the wrong way round. Whether you had anything novel to say in the first place, or whether it was worth your belaboring, would be a different question. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say that if an admin who has edited CC related article casually, is not recently involved in the article or editors relating to the Enforcement request, and hasn't been subject to a request resulting in censure or sanction, then they should be allowed to comment in the "Uninvolved Admin" section. A diversity of voices should include those who have edited in the general environment. Yeah, I know, what defines casually...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to have Cenarium participate there. As I said when I made my observation. But that is apparently not what this is actually about. There appears to be some litmus test of wording I'm not passing. Which is now being used for some other political purpose. Well, tough. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're now at the legalistic position that "You may be an asshole and your mother may be have trouble remembering who fathered you" is not an insult, because, well "maybe not". And even that argument does not hold: You claimed that Cenarium is "not entirely uninvolved" when, by Wikipedia standard, yes, he is entirely uninvolved as he only ever made janitorial edits in the climate change area, and those extremely rarely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What an inane analogy. You have no standing to be making such claims. Sorry if I'm calling you on your political ploy. You're involved. I'm not. Get over it. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephan, leave it, please. Lar, there's no litmus test and no political purpose, at least as far as I'm concerned. You said that Cenarium was involved. I didn't see the basis for involvement (and still don't), so I asked you to clarify it.

    I thought it was worth clarifying for several reasons: first, the issue of involvement is a notoriously contentious one on this topic. Secondly, these sorts of assertions tend to acquire the status of fact through sheer repetition, and I'd rather nip that in the bud since there doesn't appear to be a factual basis in this case. Since Cenarium is uninvolved, it seems inadvisable to feed into claims to the contrary (which will undoubtedly arise from one side or the other if he starts adminning the area). That's all.

    I'm not here to accuse you of anything, and I don't think I have. So I don't entirely understand your reaction, which seems defensive, evasive, personalized, and focused on wrong-footing me instead of just clarifying your assertion. You're not usually like that, so I'll assume it's just a got-up-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-bed thing. MastCell Talk 20:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll state it again. I ran a tool, saw some edits, said "not entirely uninvolved but certainly welcome to participate (as an uninvolved admin)" perhaps somewhat hastily, clarified it, and that's apparently not good enough. That's not defensive or evasive on my part. Just annoyed at the gamesmanship some folk, including Stephan and WMC and (by association with their games) yourself indulge in. You picked up Stephan's ball and started trying to run it down the field. Don't do that if y ou want to have any credence with me. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess I felt you hadn't clarified your assertion - it sounded to me like you just repeated that Cenarium was "not entirely uninvolved", and went off on a bit of a tangent. To be clear, I brought this up with you after seeing your comment about Cenarium, and prior to (or at least without any awareness of) Stephan or anyone else making an issue of it elsewhere.

        It would disappoint me if you don't find me credible. But to be frank, if I come to your talk page with a simple, civil, straightforward request for clarification and you respond with accusations and insinuations, then I doubt there is much I can do to restore that credibility, at least in the present climate. In any case, if we're all agreed that Cenarium is uninvolved for the purposes of adminning the probation, then I think there's not much more to say. MastCell Talk 21:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winding up

[edit]

So you read

"Cenarium is not "entirely uninvolved" as they do have edits in article space in this topic area (however minor). But, be that as it may, new perspectives are always good."

as

"Cenarium is involved and ought not to participate as an uninvolved admin"???

Is that what you're saying? Perhaps if you read more carefully in future, assumed good faith, and didn't make knee jerk responses that had the effect of giving credence to nonsense and game playing (while trying to claim the high road... your request was hardly simple or straightforward, although I'll give you civil), I'd find you more credible, yes. I'm not involved. Get over it. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I didn't say you were involved, so there's no need to keep asserting that you're not. And this conversation is what it looks like when I assume good faith. I didn't see the basis for one of your comments, so I came to your talk page to ask you about it directly. I allowed that I didn't perform an exhaustive review of Cenarium's contribs either, and left open the possibility that I'd missed something. I made an effort to let slide comments of yours that seemed a bit provocative. I haven't asserted that you're "involved", nor questioned your motives or reading comprehension - courtesies which you've declined to extend to me, while lecturing me on assuming good faith.

Worse, it sounds like we basically agree that Cenarium's administrative input is welcome, so we're basically fighting over nothing. I'll chalk it up to the generally poisonous atmosphere around the climate-change articles, because again I think this is atypical of you. MastCell Talk 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we're fighting over nothing. You played right into Stephan Schulz's hand. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is parting remarks like that one that makes for a poisonous atmosphere. Even if you personally think this - was there any reason to write it, other than trying to ire? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look to the beam in your own eye before you comment on the mote in that of another. You and yours poisoned the atmosphere long ago. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? What? I'm assuming here that you came out of the wrong side of the bed today as well, and will ask you to retract that statement. Or please explain in detail how this isn't a personal attack. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by it. The atmosphere around GW articles is poisoned. Would you like to assert it is not? ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are standing by a personal attack on me as an individual? Nice - really nice. There may be a poisonous atmosphere in the CC area (i in fact alluded to this in my comment) - but you are saying quite specifically that it is my fault. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my characterization of part of the problem and my perception of the causes. That doesn't mean it's a personal attack to hold that view or to articulate it. It's tactics like the ones you are employing this very moment, in this very discussion, that are poisonous. You apparently lack introspective ability sufficient to realise you are part of the problem. Not as big a part as WMC, but you're an enabler of his corrosive behavior, for sure, even if your own behavior were otherwise perfect. And we are none of us perfect. ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar - i am not trying to be tactical. I'm genuinely concerned that there hasn't been any policy violation, and that you (the uninvolved admins) are making a justitsmord because of the "feeling" that WMC must be guilty, if not in this - then in something else. I'm going to disengage completely - since you've quite adequately explained that no matter how much i ask - you are never going to give me an answer - just (apparently) abuse. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want an answer from WMC. You're in the way. It's not "abuse" to point that out. I hope you do disengage from interfering with getting that answer (or making it plain that none is forthcoming) but not for the reasons you state. I am happy to answer questions when they are asked in ways that don't interfere with the business at hand and when they are relevant. But if I've already reviewed the material and drawn a conclusion you don't get to demand that I recapitulate it over and over at your whim, which is how I perceive your question to me. There were plenty of diffs presented that show a long term problematic pattern of editing at Singer. You may not be convinced. Fine. But you're wrong. And the longer you deny the problem, the longer you enable WMC to be snarky and evade accounting for himself and in general act in a noxious way, the more corrosive the atmosphere becomes. Hence, you and yours are responsible for the poisonous atmosphere. Sorry, but there it is. Perhaps if you hadn't alienated people who are on your side about the science with your tactics it would be different. ++Lar: t/c 00:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, might I suggest that these kinds of heated debates leave you susceptible to quote mining by those who suspect you to be biased, and that it might be best to disengage? In my experience, these kinds of discussions go nowhere and have little effect other than to clutter the debate, and in your case, they tend to get you into trouble (undeserved trouble, but trouble nonetheless). ATren (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. These guys are pretty good at tag teaming me and getting me pretty wound up. You'd think I know better by now. Good thing you come by from time to time to remind me. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Stephan_Schulz.E2.80.8E_.26_Lar

[edit]

I have filed this case to get clarity on the involved/not involved status of both of you. You may respond there. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I have responded there. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lar, I don't often leave messages like this, but having followed the drama at RFAR, I thought you might need it. Please know that I think your efforts at GS/CC are not much short of superhuman. The current Arbitration drama makes very sorry reading, especially when you yourself have done no wrong. No Wikipedia contributor should have to suffer baseless questions about their neutrality and judgment. Thank you for everything you do there, and if ever you need assistance with the workload on the enforcement page, know that I (and also, I'm sure, the folks who frequent the main AE page) am always willing to help. Consider this a barnstar :). Regards, AGK 23:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I appreciate your support! As for needing assistance at GS/CC... please! The more admins, the better, I think. Whenever you feel up to it and for however long you can stand it. Every bit helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're most welcome. Okay, I'll add the page to my watchlist, and message some of the folks at AE to see if they'd be willing to do the same. More eyes are always better. Best, AGK 23:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA alert

[edit]

Hello, Lar. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. You can be sure that if I am referring to you individually I will use one of your preferred terms of reference, as always. I'm not like some who constantly try out various terms to see if they skirt the ban in place on certain others. You might find more profit in speaking to those folks, I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

[edit]

I wanted a not equals symbol in my edit summary, so I clicked on the character insert. It didn't seem to work, so I did it elsewhere and copy-pasted. Now I see where it went. Sorry bout that. I saw it when I returned to the page, but not quickly enough to remove it before you got to it.--SPhilbrickT 17:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Arguably that whole section might need to be moved before the section it's now after but the formatting of that part seems a bit wonky. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

Maybe remove the (apparent) sarcasm directed at Mastcell here? I believe his response was sincere, and doesn't warrant a snarky response. And while Mastcell has been somewhat involved at times in the CC articles, it hasn't been extensive, and I think they could still act as an uninvolved here (like BozMo) and provide good input. FWIW. ATren (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any sarcasm directed at MastCell. I sincerely thanked him for answering the question. (but that diff is responses to Stephan Schulz and NW I think? ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was referring to "Hopefully it wasn't too strenuous an endeavor." I took that as possible sarcasm but if it was sincere then I apologize. ATren (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. OK, yes to a certain extent there was a bit of a dig there but it was at KDP and StS, et. al., who busily denigrate almost any attempt to even ASK questions. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on my part; I wasn't offended, although I honestly appreciate ATren's concern in that regard. I am a little curious about your conclusion (below) that I've made significant edits to climate-change articles. I certainly don't remember editing climate-change articles much, or at all really. Looking back, I see this talk-page discussion from July '09, when I took issue with the presentation of a source on Fred Singer. Beyond that, I'm not seeing much of anything. On the other hand, I haven't made any sort of detailed review of my contributions, so it may be that I've edited these articles more substantially and simply forgotten about it. Either way, I was wondering if you could clarify the basis for your conclusion that I'm "involved" or have made substantial contributions in the climate-change area. MastCell Talk 20:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at intersection with WMC (so likely not all of your CC edits) you have edited on An_Inconvenient_Truth, Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy, DeSmogBlog. Environmental_skepticism, Fred_Singer, George_C._Marshall_Institute, Global_warming, Global_warming_controversy, James_Hansen, Jim_Inhofe, John_Brignell, Michael_Crichton, Michael_E._Mann, Pseudoskepticism, Public_opinion_on_climate_change, RealClimate, Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change, Steven_Milloy, The_Heartland_Institute, Timothy_F._Ball, William_Connolley, and World_Climate_Report. Some might surmise that this is a substantial amount of editing in the CC area. [19] is one of many such edits, which belies your assertion that you do not recall editing CC articles much <g>. And this is only the ones in common with WMC. Collect (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't think you are as involved as some but I found enough articles in the topic area that you had at least one edit to that I'm comfortable considering you as enough involved to in general DQ you from enforcement. Just picking a few at random: World Climate Report, Pseudoskepticism, Environmental skepticism, An Inconvenient Truth, RealClimate, Public opinion on climate change, William Connolley, Scientific opinion on climate change, Global warming controversy, Global warming, Fred Singer, Petroleum, Nobel Prize controversies, Michael E. Mann, DeSmogBlog... that's enough I think. I think your interest really lies in other areas of science though, if I run some checks for ID or Cold Fusion I find proportionally more articles. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, because I don't recall editing ID at all, and cold fusion rarely if ever. I assume these findings were generated by an automated tool, and it may be worth double-checking its handiwork. For example:
I'll stop there, because hopefully my point is clear. These edits do not signify "involvement" to me; most are uncontroversial housekeeping, and some are administrative actions taken from a explicit standpoint of non-involvement. The sheer volume of articles may have created a misleading impression of the actual substance of my editing (of lack thereof) on climate-change articles. Would you be willing to go through this list, verify the output of the automated tool, discard the articles where my contributions clearly don't substantiate an assertion of involvement, and post the updated list? MastCell Talk 22:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, if Collect doesn't beat me to it. He's much more efficient than I am. 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll help out. Here are all of my edits to pseudoskepticism. I'm not seeing the relevance to climate change. Here are the entirety of my content contributions to An Inconvenient Truth (3 consecutive edits, all from July 2007). I also semiprotected the article in August 2007; that's it. I've made 1 edit to public opinion on climate change: [24]. The background is that I realized with horror that naturalnews.com, a patently unreliable source, had been spammed all over God's green Wikipedia and went about removing links to it (see my immediately subsequent edits, e.g. [25], [26]). Again, I don't see these as evidence of "involvement" in any sort of editorial dispute about climate change. MastCell Talk 22:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here to an extent. However, the fact that someone has edited some CC articles before is not stated anywhere as an impediment to acting as an uninvolved admin in disputes and nor should it be. Polargeo (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to review what several ArbCom members (and many others) have said: Significant work in the topic area is a bar to being "uninvolved". That's pretty clear. That rules out Stephan Schulz, you, MastCell, and many others. Having an opinion about matters is not a bar to being "uninvolved", though. The sooner you get on board with that the better. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming the fact that you have not edited any CC articles as some high ground over editors such as myself is something I would expect. That you called WMC a wacko before CC sanctions even started and are now acting as "uninvolved" is shocking. I truly wish you would realize this. You are defining uninvolved entirely to suit yourself. I am not surprised by this gaming but am fairly sickened by it. Polargeo (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your moral outrage is misplaced. And you're terrifically confused about matters. Again, pay attention to what ArbCom is saying. Your debate style seems to be composed of equal parts bluster and "I didn't hear that". Not an effective long term approach. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo: please supply a cite for me calling WMC a "wacko" ASAP. Or strike that allegation. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here. Hipocrite (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity why are you answering for Polargeo? But thanks. I had forgotten about that diff. I can see why Polargeo read it that way and can't blame him. It wasn't what I meant(1), but yes. Inappropriate, at this remove. Thanks for finding the diff. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS, thanks again for reminding me to review that page, I found some absolutely fascinating diffs from other folk there. Makes one wonder, it does. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


1 - First, it was a remark in response to WMC characterising many other candidates as "wacko candidates", although to be fair he didn't say who he was referring to... Second, my take on what he meant there was "wacky to be running" rather than casting aspersions on the candidates themselves ( but I could be wrong ). I considered his chances of winning before he started as so low that it was also a "wacky to be running" situation. All that aside I still think at this remove it was an unkind and unnecessary remark.

new essay WP:Editorially involved

[edit]

Skeletal essay presented for opinion and improvement. Collect (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. Essay designed to further your own goals. Based on "If editors design an essay to further their own personal goals it should be instantly rejected" Polargeo (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I note you get around using the word cabal by calling it a claque. Maybe you should call it a Clique or similar. Your essay is just bady invented to suit your own purpose. We could equally say "Hey how come independent editors keep undoing these edits. Maybe it is because those edits fall foul of WP:NPOV or WP:COATRACK or WP:Weight or WP:RS etc. etc." But no a Claque is the best thing to call those bastards. Polargeo (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay, Collect. Short and sweet. I normally am not a fan of new essays, as we have quite the thicket already... is there somewhere else it could live? Polargeo: That apparent chip on your shoulder may be interfering with your ability to observe things as they are. Open your eyes. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(ec)Note: I asked for Lar's opinion here. As I never called anything a "cabal" your post looks more like wikistalking than it does legitimate comment on the contents of the essay. As I am not associated with any group of editors on any topic area, I find your objections a bit outre at best. Meanwhile, the last person to call for one of my essays to be deleted was just indeffed for abuse of multiple accounts. Now can you let Lar look at the esay? Thank you most kindly. @Lar - essays are how real discussions eventually find their way to the fore - talk pages, even though "searchable", are, in comparison, ephemeral. Collect (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: I did look. I liked it. I note that there is likely no term that will be acceptable to the group so designated. Cabal is Right Out. Cadre seems not well received. I doubt Claque will go over well. (It also doesn't cover ALL the functions of the members such a group.... Flapper is in there too among others). Note that there need be no offwiki or onwiki coordination beyond just watching pages and reacting, for the effect to nevertheless be manifested. Note also that pointing it out, even when it's obvious to most bystanders, earns you no style points and in fact may get you called "delusional", or worse or may start efforts by the group to hinder or oust you using every avenue available (Expect such avenues as a user conduct RfC, an ArbCom action, and a WQA all at the same time, plus lots of time draining byplay on your talk, for example, as several members whipsaw you).
My point about another place was not to disparage essays as a concept. They are indeed less ephemeral than talk pages. It was merely to say we have more than a few already and many are not very findable. Putting these ideas into another existing essay if one can be found that fits might be better than yet another new one. Small point. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"an organized body of professional applauders"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Collet does not like to call it a cabal. :). @Collect. You claim I am wikistalking. When your entire thread on the RfC is based on wikistalk results. Lar originally started the wikistalk analysis. I am just amazed by this silly mudslinging. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not very observant, are you? ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I was "Ikipped" in the past (and got a rare apology from him, finally). Try four or more WQAs, RFAR, RFC/U, RfMs, SPIs, etc. all going on pretty much at the same time <g>. (apologies for bolding, but the event was quite odd at best). And accusations not only of being "delusional" but of serious mental illness, being a major sock puppetteer, using multiple simultaneous accounts, etc. to boot. And accusations of wikistalking and harassment from the same person (who, as I noted) is now indeffed for abusing multiple accounts (irony is great). (note also that several of the "participants" in my RFC/U are now also banned as socks etc.) The point remains, however, that all that is required for "them" to triumph is for everyone else to fear them. No matter what the group is is. Ever. Collect (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err what? I obviously have missed a very great deal. Without you providing the wikilinks I am completely in the dark. Polargeo (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have to accept I am fairly new to wikipedia and I do not know what has gone on in the past. Although you would wish to tie me to WMC because I disagree with you I genuinely have no axe to grind on that front whatsoever. Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might you show me where I have "tied" you to anyone at all? Indeed, I did not find any such statement by me at all. Collect (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I supported a statement on the RfC. You then implemented a wikistalk based on this to show that I had connections to those other editors who had endorsed the statement. Unless you personally think we are all socks or meatpuppets I kindly ask you to desist from this sort of nonsense, it is very degrading. Polargeo (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
!. MZM has a name for a tool. The use of that tool has zilch to do with "wikistalking." It is just the name he gave the tool. 2. I gave data. I have over two decades experience online (with contractual obligations in the area) and have a pretty good idea of what the data show and do not show. 3. You seem to think that by you using aspersions that you can claim I made such aspersions. That is a fallacious means of discussion at best. 4. I ask you to redact your accusations above. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one trying to smear me with your self selected "data". I have very little respect for this type of nonsense. Polargeo (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So move along, go edit an article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be nice on my talk page. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic. After an offline email I am reminded to make a point again. I don't think "claque" fits (certainly not as the primary word used anyway) because it has too strong a connotation of pay. While it is possible some people are being paid, I highly doubt it for almost everyone if not everyone. Intense interest is a far easier explanation. ++Lar: t/c 10:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good thread though and a nice word to add to my vocab for future off Wiki use. --BozMo talk 11:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC comments

[edit]

Please could you reread what you have written and tone down those elements which add fuel to the fire rather than calm it. It is easiest to do this before people start endorsing it necessitating strike through. Now is not the time for a rallying cry, but to show that you are moderate, calm and uninvolved. --BozMo talk 16:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific suggestions for improvement? Contact me offline if you like. I'm willing to withdraw it temporarily if you can give me specifics but I feel strongly that the elephant in the room needs illuminating. Tiptoeing around it will not work, it's a good part of the problem. That is by far not the first draft, it was moderated a lot already. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholded, temporarily but you need to give me detailed, specific suggestions ASAP. And if they start with "Don't say there's a group of editors who band together and defend each other" ... we may not have any common ground. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My concern is that the "no one questions the science and now it is all about the aggressive behaviour of a group of pro AGW editors..." is absolutely asking for someone to reply the other side "we have had a large stream of people who have come in on a skeptic ticket, take a huge amount of community effort to educate, been evenually convinced they did not have the evidence and either hung on as waiting resentfully in the shadows for WMC, baiting him (because they resent the fact they realised eventually they were wrong and he was right) or gone to be replaced by others". This return characterisation of a list of people one could easily put together (easier than the other group) is as unhelpful as trying to draw out one group as though the other did not exist. And drawing up battle lines is less constructive than acknowledging and encouraging all the diversity which exists. --BozMo talk 17:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clearer, suppose I start producing a list of a group of "thwarted skeptic irritants" whom I name and who I say always turn up together to complain about WMC and edit together, and contribute very little net to WP do you think anyone might have an issue with being seen to be uninvolved? But effectively that's the flip side of what you are doing sometimes... so lets not do that. --BozMo talk 17:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IS there such an informal group of supporters? (which does not include everyone who accepts that global warming is occuring and that the articles are generally correct on weighting of the science parts) DO they employ tactics that make it difficult for others to participate? You need to decide what to say here. Do you deny their existence? Admit it? Or decline to take a position? All else flows from that. Please don't prevaricate if you can possibly avoid it as I do not want to get into a long drawn out discussion. I do see one thing I can reword a bit as a result but this is not the level of "detailed specific suggestions" I'm looking for. Thanks for your input so far, though. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of argument lets call the sides "real names" versus "anons" (I know a couple of exceptions exist). Specifically I do not see more group behaviour or bad behaviour on the "real names" side than on the "anon side". You can choose to see either side as pack animals or individuals and get as good a fit with what we see. Both have lots of faults but no I do not see the tactics of Kim or WMC as worse than the baiting of those trying to move the articles off centre or WMC into trouble. The only thing which may be worse is not the crime but the culpability because the real names are much more established editors and should be more self aware. But in my mind that's offset by the much greater project contribution in general. And the way forward? Build relationships which each one as a person and don't try to box them. --BozMo talk 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you answered my questions. I'm a real name. I even share a POV with the "real names". But I don't reflexively spring to the defense of others who share a POV, but who edit poorly. Would you please try again? I'd certainly appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS for more on this see User talk:Lar#Cadre from earlier this month (it will eventually almost certainly be in the same archive as this thread, or if not, one archive back) I don't think you ever satisfactorily dealt with this same topic, then. (I may in fact end up mining that thread for some rewording) ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again. I can see differences in opinion and approach between Boris, Kim and WMC. When I see arguments with one I look to see what the position the others are taking because they are different. I can only see a limited area when they appear as the three musketeers. The only one of the three whom I find particularly awkward is actually Kim because I find he tends to persist with an argument whenever logic can be maintain but beyond when reasonableness fails. Boris is by far the most reasonable and the easiest to reason with. I have not yet seen Boris make a bad edit on an article, or support one. WMC shoots from the hip and sometimes misses, but apologises when he is wrong. They do not cover each other's backs and Boris often tells WMC off for bad behaviour. Whereas I am afraid on the probation pages I see far more consistency and "gang-like" behaviour from the thwarted skeptics when anyone attacks WMC than I ever see these editors exhibiting on article pages or talk. I am not going to try to draw a line around those involved because I know that people tend to behave how you characterise them. --BozMo talk 20:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So that would be "no" then? ArbCom has found that these patterns exist in other cases. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first list would be a list of all those who had baited WMC, made false accusations, teased, agreed with each other over nonsense. Round one I win trivally because 650 of these have been found and dealt with. Several elephants still in the room before we can spot a fern seed at 50m. But the fern seed may be there. --BozMo talk 21:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. Scibaby sockpuppets. Well there's no arguing with that convenient enemies list, I guess. I'm not seeing this conversation going anywhere really productive yet. Let's try again. What changes do you suggest I make to my draft before I repost it? Would it be accurate to say that you're a "denier" when it comes to the existence of an informal group of supporters? ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is nearly midnight here and I have been off at a parish meeting, sorry. Can I try again and ask what in your view is different between the W, K & B grouping if we make it and, say, HiP, ZP5 & AQFK as a group of three editors who tend to be aligned especially on WMC type issues? If there aren't any particular differences why do you emphasise the former group and ignore the latter? I will resume this in the morning when you are probably in bed. --BozMo talk 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I may interject, one of those groups has been doing it for about 10 times longer than the other. ATren (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ATren, I am not sure what to say to that as your point is unclear to me but at any moment in say the last 4 or 5 years it would be possible to find a list of at least three (more skeptical) editors behaving together just as HiP, ZP5 & AQFK do (or don't). The only difference is that most of them last three or four months, often pushing the provocation further and getting members banned, but the longevity of the "group" is equivalent. And as the discussion has moved off articles into project pages, one could claim the Lar himself has unintentionally joined that gang. But of course they are better considered as individuals. --BozMo talk 06:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar I "deny" that "there are groups here, and that their activities have been on balance more harmful than beneficial" if by it you mean to imply that your list of editors (W,B,K etc) who correlate represent a harmful impact on Wikipedia. Does that answer your question? --BozMo talk 06:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think you're wrong. I think you will find I am by far not the only person who thinks that they exist and that they are more harmful then beneficial. Further, I think you are misunderstanding the (admittedly amorphous) inclusion metrics. Mere presence in the same places is just a way to find candidates, not the defining metric, which is more along the lines of the kinds of activities engaged in (reflexive support, and reflexive attack of tnose opposing) I've been counseled not to belabor the point so I shan't. (or at least try to cut back) ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well you are welcome to email me if you don't want to provoke people here. Of course they exist (editors with the character a in their name are definible as a group and exist) but the net harm to WP is going to take some convincing. --BozMo talk 10:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your view at the RfC. I'm delusional, WMC's nastiness is because of the folks who call him on it, misbehavior by his allies is almost nonexistent, and anyway excusable because they're right, and there's no problem at all with anything they do, the real problem is with their victims. Got it. I think we're done. But you might read Risker's view at the case request again, more carefully. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said. --BozMo talk 11:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could provide line by line quotes for you, but I'm not sure it's a good use of my time. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement metrics

[edit]

Note: I am now "officially involved" in CC because of an edit where I changed "asserting" to "asserts" and "has described as" to "called" and "among Australian independent bookstores " to "In Australia" etc. The use of silly season type accusations ois upon us. Unless, of course, the word "said" is now somehow "POV"? Collect (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite now avers that I have had "substantial participation" in the topic of the CC probation <g>. Seems like the first of April fever is hitting. Collect (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no big deal. --BozMo talk 17:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's bothersome when people assert that you're "involved" based on the existence of edits to an article without bothering to evaluate the content of those edits. So I can empathize with your frustration. Perhaps you can now empathize with mine? :) MastCell Talk 23:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact - since you raise it here, I did check some at your request. 1. [27] appears substantive indeed. 2. CRU you only protected 3. [28] is a relatively minor, but definite, edit. 4. At least you removed the category "AIDS denialism" from an article. [29] 5. Many edits including [30] among others. 6. Many edits including [31] 7. [32] relatoively minor edit - but still substantive. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you made substantial contributions in 4 out of the 7 -- so figure that you substantially edited a dozen or more CC articles in common with WMC. Collect (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a "no". MastCell Talk 03:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then you don't think any of those pages are representative of substantial edits? ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my edits to any of those pages represent "involvement", by any operative definition. Do you think this edit is "substantive", as Collect calls it? If so, given that it's about 2 years old, do you think it betokens any sort of active editorial involvement in climate change? Do you think that this edit (from >2 years ago, mind you), is "substantive" evidence of involvement in climate-change-related editorial disputes (as opposed to uncontroversial removal of a clearly inappropriate edit)? Is this a "substantive" edit, or indicative in some way of involvement in an editorial dispute related to climate change (never mind that it's >1 year old)?

I won't even get into the majority of articles suggested as evidence of "involvement" above, which are obviously and clearly groundless. Do you think these edits are representative of "involvement"? And if so, what definition of "involvement" are you applying? MastCell Talk 17:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a scale of involvement here, although I don't know the units or gradations (no, Stephan, they are not Lars, thanks very much). At one end is someone obviously not involved at all, with no edits whatever or purely innocuous ones. At the other end is someone heavily involved, one of the "key" contributors to the topic area. It's becoming increasingly clear to me you are rather closer to the first end than the second. (whatever the "midpoint" may mean). How to make use of this is not clear to me. Or how it bears on the ArbCom definition of involvement. But I'd rather not cast the net too wide I don't think. I don't know if that helps at all. it's rather less than straightforward in your case. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment endorsements and wording choices

[edit]
  • Lar, I find I am unable to endorse your comment - and I am concerned that such lack may be noted and even commented upon, so I am taking the step of explaining why. I do not think you have found the correct adjective to describe the editors who either appear most often to agree with the pov apparent in article space presently, and those who appear most often to attempt to vary that pov. My preferred suggestion would be a "confluence" of such editors, who arrive at the same pov over certain aspects from different criteria and who might spin off or bypass other pov's. I could suppport that looser collective noun definition of editors that come together on many points, both pro AGW and pro sceptic/denialist pov's. I also agree that ArbCom may need to look at the particular editing issues present when such a confluence becomes apparent. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like "confluence". There's no vast grand conspiracy with secret handshakes, candle lit rituals, blind message drops and so forth. There never is. It's more like folk in looser and tighter orbits. Except that the orbits aren't even necessarily around the same foci. The groupings are there though. We've seen them over and over. They arise naturally, I think. But that doesn't mean they are OK. Because reflexivly defending and attacking just don't help matters. So do you think I should use your term? That means scratching the 3 endorses I have already. I don't want to change the thing too many times. You could endorse saying you think confluence is the right word. I don't want to get hung up on words. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose it is easier for me to endorse under a definition of a term I find more appropriate, than attempt to have everyone come to my preferred variant... I suppose there are those familar with that methodoly still to make it worthwhile. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like a good approach, although I admit I didn't completely follow you. It's not how the alignments happen that's problematic or even all that relevant, it's what happens when folk are aligned... reflexive defense, overlooking transgressions by one's allies of the moment, reflexive attack, etc. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • By the defining of the manner of the grouping, there is some indication of how the issues that then occur may be problematic; because some editors may arrive at a pov that is sympathetic, then they they may also be sympathetic toward those that hold that view, i.e. less inclined to look unfavourably at the manner in which the viewpoint is expressed. However, my point is that this is not the result of deliberate agreement rather than the mechanism of coming to the same conclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah. Which is why confluence is indeed a good word... in the ebb and flow of everyday participation, streams come together and diverge again. Alliances (too formal a word) form and disperse, and the same folk may be allies in one area and disputants in another (although this is rarer) There is some good writing on WR just now about why that might be so, in fact. Despite all this, though, the behavior issues are constantly there. Even if done by others. But thre are some folk in closer orbits who persist longer. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Well then I'm totally adrift. As per usual. I always lost charades too. ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am adrift too. Is this something to do with the difference between a minority government and a coalition? The minority government has to put together ad hoc groupings on each issue. There are lots of ad hoc groupings on issues. Perhaps too many and perhaps no coincidence but I can only call it like I see it and I would not say there is much loyalty between some generally aligned players. --BozMo talk 20:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, we drifted and LHvU was now talking about why he hasn't been reading WR much lately, I think, rather than about the original topic of coagulations/confluences/coalitions/claques/cliques/cadres or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

[edit]

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

Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've commented there that I think this request is premature. I may have missed where you commented in the CC RfC. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:BootlegBeatles whitealbum.jpg

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:BootlegBeatles whitealbum.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was a long time ago, wasn't it? I believe a proper FUR has now been added. Please advise of further concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature grafiti

[edit]

Incidentally trying to find out what you thought I was accusing you of I found this which appears to contain very long standing multiple signature grafiti (all the names, presumably drinking mates) which has been copied all over the internet. Do you know the subject enough to be sure these names are really not relevant at all?--BozMo talk 20:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no, I've not much experience with delusions (from either end, since I don't have any!... and I'm certainly not a mental health practictioner!) but as a layman, I'm highly dubious and would boot those all out of there and demand real refs to put them back. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three months WMC/FS

[edit]

You need to be precise about calendar versus Lunar months and whether it dates from the original ban or from now. Best to specify an end date, prefering written in full so no US dates thing. Aside all the bits you obviously did not like can we agree on point six of my RFC comment? We need some special measures to deal with BLPs of people whom the scientific consensus does not hold in respect... --BozMo talk 06:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I will clarify that the page ban runs till 26 August 2010 at 02:00 (UTC). Thanks. As for your point 6, yes, as far as it goes. EVERY BLP should be edited in a way that is respectful of the LP (not shade what the sources say one way or the other, mind) and in a way that scrupulously adheres to our basic beliefs and policies. It should not need to be reiterated, and that it does is a symptom of how bad the problems are in this area. The rest of that view is so far out of kilter as to not be endorsable, though. ++Lar: t/c 10:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, and to reiterate, I thought the suggestion to clarify the end date/time was an excellent one. However, apparently, WMC does not agree. Interesting. In case someone later asks me why it was not recorded at WMC's page, that diff is in the record here now. I wonder what would have happened if I'd omitted it there? ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have extremely strong views on BLPs as you know - and would suggest that the ban include any page on which the BLP concerns about Singer are important, lest pages marginally related to him (or even strongly related to him) fall through the cracks. WMC ought not make any edits concerning Singer qua Singer as near as I can tell due to that BLP importance. Meanwhile, this is the first time I have seen 15 minute blocks for anyone who has such an interesting record of blocks on an issue <g>. Collect (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good point re Singer, but due to it not being raised or thought of (d'oh!) there is no existing consensus for that, unfortunately. I don't think exceeding the mandate is a good idea, at all. Feel free to propose it as an extension though, it would have my support, and if consensus existed, it would be added. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where would it go as a proposal as a general extension to the concept of any topic bans or restrictions with regard to any BLP? This is a far broader issue than just the case at hand, to be sure. Would a proposal to modify WP:BLP to make a general statement such as "Anyone barred from any specific articles concerning any individual or group, or any topic where BLP concerns might reasonably be seen to exist, is also barred from editing any other articles or associated talk pages where the same person or group, or same topic where BLP concerns have been raised, is mentioned" be sufficient? Clearly no ex post facto restrictions would be proper. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A general clarification of BLP policy seems the best place for the principle and I encourage you to seek it there, you would have my support (ping me to remind me if you go forward). However I think if you wanted it to apply in this case, explicit consensus would be needed and it would need to be obtained at the CC/RE page. ++Lar: t/c 11:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty much uninvolved in the WMC case (and a bit annoyed at being in the RFAR to be sure <g>). I am more concerned with WP:BLP which means it might be nice if you watchlisted that page. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As none of WMC's recent edits (since sanctions began) have violated BLP issues on the Fred Singer article and given the context of his long arguments on the WMC matter I find Collect's proclamations extremely disingenuous or at best very misguided. Polargeo (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC) And please do not insist that I assume good faith or retract this comment because I am quite honestly stating that I believe there is bad faith here. Polargeo (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My position re:BLP goes back a long time, and, as noted above, has absolutely nothing to do with CC or WMC. See also User:Collect/BLP and note that this goes back a very long time for me. So kindly redact strike your accusations here. Collect (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, please review User:Lar/Pooh Policy. Polargeo is welcome to strike comments if he so chooses, or let them stand if that's his choice, but we don't redact things here. What's said here is said permanently with VERY limited exception (I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times it has happened, IIRC), and will be eventually archived (and indexed by a bot for ease of finding it later). That's just how I roll. THAT said, I agree with you that your views on BLPs predate involvement in CC. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I was hoping for something about Pooh sticks. The start of Winnie the Pooh (about him being dragged downstairs with his head bumping) is one of the great pieces of English literature: up there with Kipling's finest. --BozMo talk 13:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do like that bit, yes. I feel rather like Pooh in that context some days. Aside: Have you read The Tao of Pooh? ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I can't keep my policies straight. It's actually User:Lar/Eeyore Policy I was referencing. ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Levin

[edit]

You may wish to monitor the Carl Levin article as there is an editor who insists on using questionable citations to back up his insistance that Senator Levin has no military experience. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk of the article. Please try to engage this editor if you can rather than edit warring to keep material out. If he's willing to work on the entire article, as I encouraged him, great. If he's just there to make a point on one topic, that will be dealt with. ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not there just to make one point, I will work to improve the article. I have worked on quite a few articles. But my cites are more than valid, including Levin's official Senate bio. If Steelbeard isn't happy with this uncontroverted statement of fact, which is well-cited, then it is his POV. There is nothing questionable about my citations. Request you help resolve the matter. If necessary, I will go to the library or buy Levin's offical biography online and cite that. I am the Botendaddy 00:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cites are fine, but the lack of military service "cites" are not bonafied journalistic citations and the official site's "citation" does not state anything about the senator's military service. So the lack of military service edit has been removed again. That edit should not be reinserted until a bonafied journalistic citation which specifically states whether or not the senator served in the military is found. Outside of that, the citations found for the rest of the article look fine. On the military service edit, it is actually Botendaddy who is pushing POV, not me. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Botendaddy won't comply with my request for bonafied journalistic citation so he is edit warring again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbeard is the one who is edit warring. I have repeatedly cited valid sources. The whoserved site is very well-know has been referenced hundreds of times by commentators from both political parties and it is prepared by a man with a background in policial science. Not a single official biography of Levin shows any military service at all. All of my cites are valid. I am the Botendaddy 01:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is Botendaddy who is edit warring. I had ask that he provide bonafied journalistic citations. But he is not. One is from Juan Cabanela, another is from "Freedom Speaks" and the third is from Chad A. Miles. The official site from Senator Levin does not specifically state anything about military service or Levin not serving in the military. Of course, journalistic sources are newspapers, broadcast news sources or other unbiased news services. Since I'm pushing 3RR, I should report this. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Botendaddy: Absence of a citable thing is not itself citable. That's synthesis. Find a cite from a reliable source that says Levin never served, or drop it. Blogs don't cut it. If you can establish reliability for Whoserved... maybe. Meanwhile, no edit warring please, or I'll protect the article (and prevent all the other good work happening from moving forward, which would be unfortunate) until you can sort out what the right version is. Steelbeard1: Step away, leave this to others to sort out. Bringing it to the 3RR board or the BLP board might be acceptable, but no edit warring please. Hope that helps both of you, good luck and happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did report Botendaddy in both the 3RR and BLP boards and Botendaddy received a 24 hour block as a result. OTOH, I got an eight-minute block until the administrator determined guilt. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to check out the still blocked Botendaddy's talk page as he seems to be in a defiant mood as he is seeking arbitration which I think he will lose. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's seeking arbitration? I saw nothing about that on his talk. ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pasted comment from him is as follows: Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed I shouldn't have edit warred, so I deserve the block, but it looks like you didn't read my earlier comments where I specifically mentioned that the U.S. military has civilian oversight. I disagree that it is an NPOV violation. Reason, as I stated earlier, Dick Cheney for example, was Secretary of Defense, so prior military service was not mandatory for the job but it is clearly relevant. To say it's a violation of NPOV to say that the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services comittee has no military service is likewise not an NPOV violation. I intend to submit your view of this as an NPOV violation to arbitration. If you are correct then I want to see the discussion removed from Cheney's page as well. I also contest Steelbeard1's contention that my sources are not legitimate and do not support my contention. I am the Botendaddy 23:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course that is now moot thanks to the CQ Roll Call article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Botendaddy has erased all traces of the Carl Levin article dispute in his talk page stating that the issue was resolved and he did not wish to scare readers. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You should consider providing a diff rather than a paste of the remarks, a diff is almost always better. (not always but almost always). As for removing the comments from talk, that's allowed under policy. I think that policy is wrong but I don't see it changing any time soon. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found an acceptable way of mentioning Levin's lack of military experience using his own words from a newly found CQ Roll Call article. It's in the Armed Services section of the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Well done. ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical Question

[edit]

Would it be okay for a user to suggest on her talk page that someone was committing tax fraud? Or would that count as a BLP violation? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly the latter unless impeccably sourced and somehow relevant, I would think, but I'd need to see specifics. Certainly a bare assertion would be Right Out under almost any circumstance I can imagine. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that flatly stating something like that would not go over well, which is why I was curious about how solid the fuzzy boundaries of suggestion and innuendo are. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE tell me you're not asking because you yourself are contemplating doing something like that. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I currently have no plans to imply that someone is committing tax fraud. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPandS

[edit]

Hi Lar. SBHB mentioned this page to me. I just wanted to note that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is most emphatically not the "American equivalent of The Lancet". JPandS is a fringe journal published by a right-wing political advocacy group, and it tends to carry articles denying that HIV causes AIDS, citing the "gay male lifestyle" as a major cause of societal ills, and making factually erroneous claims about illegal immigrants spreading leprosy across our great land. I think you may have had in mind JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association), which is of course a highly reputable mainstream medical journal, and arguably the American equivalent of The Lancet. In my more cynical moments, I suspect that JPandS was named so as to intentionally facilitate such confusion. Regardless, just wanted to bring it to your attention. MastCell Talk 18:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mastcell, they certainly fooled me :) I`ll remove that ref straight away 88.108.198.181 (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was me btw, for some weird reason i got logged out :) mark nutley (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Like I said, it's a common mix-up. MastCell Talk 19:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell: Yes, JAMA was what I was thinking of. Senior moment. Thanks for the catch. That page of Mark's seems to have a lot of eyes on it, does it not? It should be a pretty good article by the time it goes live, I'd hope. :) Marknutley: As for pulling the source entirely, it's an acceptable source from the perspective of quoting what the subject says about themselves, so if that's the usage (I forget already) then it can stay, otherwise it ought to go. This is a subtle distinction but one I hope you'll be starting to get better at soon. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything i do has a lot of eyes on it :) it`s enough to make a man paranoid lol. I have added another ref btw it is another paper wgich was published in Energy & Environment but is hosted on (Multi Science Publishing) I think i`ll ask cla and maybe SV to look it over, they both seem very good with BLP`s mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make use of it. Ask for advice. Ask for help. And if people give you snarky advice or bluster instead of helping, ignore them politely and work with those who offer help. MastCell, for example, I bet would be very willing to give you assistance if you ask. So would SBHB. Use their interest to your benefit. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of my comments

[edit]

Just a question of clarification really. When you moved my comments because you claimed I was involved did you do this because I had edited some climate change articles and therefore am involved in this vast area of wikipedia and never able to act as uninvolved in the field of climate change or if not why? It is useful for me to know to either avoid conflict or to argue my case. Polargeo (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My spot checking shows extensive editing in this area by you, recently, although I certainly could be wrong. Never is a long time, you know... but a year or two with no substantive topic edits ought to do in my view. You could ask any of the ArbCom members who have articulated similar views (that editing in topic space is a sign of involvement, that having interacted with editors who edit in topic space is not) what their thinking on guidelines and numbers might be. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly you may know the mind of arbcom but I am unfamiliar with it. I just go on the policy definitions of uninvolved. Climate change should not be judged on previous arbcom rulings as it is a much larger area. Also please scrutinise my edits if you feel I come to this with any POV pushing content objective. I feel I have less POV pushing intent than admins such as yourself who have not edited any articles. Polargeo (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are having a rather frustrating "dialog" ... How about just reading what ArbCom members are saying in their responses to the CC RfArs?? If you would just read, and read carefully, it would really help matters. Right now you are not doing that. Come back when you find an ArbCom member who, in their response, supports your view of uninvolved. Hint: you won't. The CC probation intro is written incorrectly, and badly needs fixing, to be sure, but it's not operative. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again. Climate change is very different to other areas of wikipedia which sanctions have been imposed on because of its vast size. The very fact that someone has edited some of the thousands of articles that fall under this topic is not a helpful criteria. I am also reading the general wikipedia definition of involved WP:INVOLVED. I clearly do not have strong feelings on these matters unlike yourself. If you would point me to any particular threads that you view as relevent then I will review my arguments. Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibe. Read what the arbs are saying . I just moved some of your comments out of the uninvolved admin section for the latest request. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting that you have never given me a proper link to any of those rulings even though I requested it. I will obey any relevent ruling or dispute any I do not think are relevent. If you move my comment please do not add your own paragraph in the same edit then I would not have had to undo the whole thing. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to spend the time to give you diffs, sorry, unless this ends up somewhere else. Just read all the arb comments in the two current CC case requests. Especially the second one Please. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read it. I am not Stephan Schulz and this is a different case so this narrow definition does not apply to me. There needs to be a proper outline of the rules and you need to be barred from being uninvolved yourself on cases involving WMC. I also note that the "second one" which you especially direct me to read is the comment of someone who recused. Hardly an arbcom dictat. I am stunned that is the best excuse for moving my comment that you have been able to drag up. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT... check. Risker isn't recused. Coren isn't recused. Further, I said they were opinions. So you insist on a dictat anyway though? Be careful what you ask for. Opinions often preview how rulings are going to go. Do you think your unhelpfulness and bluster will go completely unnoticed? ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

[edit]

You asked me to provide advice in a calm and genteel manner, so I'll try it with you. I question if removing admins from the uninvolved admin section is really the best way for you to press your case. Wouldn't it make more sense to just note that you consider them involved, as opposed to moving their comments out of the section which is pretty much guaranteed to start an edit war? It seems to me that by moving their comments out, even if said movement would later be approved by arbcom, you are causing the page to be disrupted. Please consider merely noting that you consider that admin involved, and that as such their opinions should be discounted, as opposed to sparking disruptive edit wars to prove your point. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - talkback, please, contrary to my policy, as I don't watch this page or follow your contribs. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite is right here - this is the Least Added Drama approach. Thparkth (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have now threatened to block another admin for undoing your actions. This is highly disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a step I took lightly or happily. But there is a lot of IDIDNTHEARTHAT in Polargeo. I'll defer to my fellow uninvolved admins going forward, unless he reverts back. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the views. While there is validity in drama avoidance... The issue here is that we've in the past moved his comments up and it's stuck. Absent some discussion among the uninvolved admins that finds him uninvolved too, I think this is the right course. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How you dare to threaten to block me [33] when we are obviously at such extreme odds with each other is uncomprehensible. I would never even contemplate making such threats against you. It shows that you have a vision of uninvolved that is modelled on your own imagination and not on the benefit of wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have threatened, blustered, and started all sorts of divisive discussions already so I find your claim less than credible, I'm afraid. I've started a thread on the talk page to get views from other uninvolved admins. Let us see what they have to say. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an enforcement request designed to get this problem solved once and for all. You may comment at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar_and.2For_Polargeo. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've let some slant leak in to your writeup. You may want to review the chain of events presentation a bit more carefully. For starters, you should start farther back, with the several times that Polargeo's comments have been moved before (which stuck). ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stuck because I did not complain. This time I am complaining. So new slate. This time I have made a genuine admin comment that you have moved with no discussion. I feel that is wrong. Polargeo (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I roll over and let you tickle my belly once (metaphorically speaking) does not mean I will not bite if you go too far. Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singer

[edit]
Hello, Lar. You have new messages at SlimVirgin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of sanction

[edit]

As a result of the recent Climate Change enforcement request, I hereby inform you of the following conclusion:

  • Lar (talk · contribs) and Polargeo (talk · contribs) are cautioned to maintain proper decorum while editing the English Wikipedia.
  • Lar (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to recuse himself as an uninvolved administrator from enforcement requests where sanctions are requested against or involving Polargeo (talk · contribs) as a party, for the next 3 months.
  • Polargeo (talk · contribs) is required to recuse himself as an uninvolved administrator at the Climate Change general sanctions for the next 3 months.

This sanction may be appealed to myself, the appropriate noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. Thank you, The WordsmithCommunicate 01:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_66&oldid=1144605340"