User talk:2over0/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your patient and considered, and hopefully continued, efforts in the AGW area. You are performing well above and beyond what could be expected from a volunteer editor, and have shown that faith in you is well placed. Well done, and keep it up! Verbal chat 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixup

I've fixed up your cot/cob: I think the small was getting in the way. When I looked, everything below was collapsed. Also, I moved the cob to include some comments that I *think* you wanted inside the collapse; apologies if I've erred in this (oops: I've now looked at the history: there has (and continues [1]) been some edit warring over the tag. OK, I'll not touch it again, up to you) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring again at monckton

You have done it again, fully protected Monkton, have you made a report to the probation board? Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrible protection. You waited until FormerIP had restored a truly terrible photograph, and THEN protected. I hardly think that's a coincidence. Unit Anode 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, from what I can gather, the pro-AGW crowd is claiming they have "consensus" for inclusion of that terrible picture, based on a rough 8 to 6 count. For such an awful picture, on a BLP, that isn't close to "consensus." It's in there, simply because it makes him look truly strange, and you need to either undo your protection, or remove the picture yourself. Unit Anode 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Off2riorob - no. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@Unitanode - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Christopher+Monckton,+3rd+Viscount+Monckton+of+Brenchley and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - 2/0 (cont.) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight's block

2/0, please unblock GoRight.

At the beginning of the year, whilst most of us were away from our computers, a small group of climate change editors set up a new forum and called it, "Climate Change Probation." The idea was proposed by a boy who appears to be in his early 20s, probably too young to have ever even had a job.

Whilst the intentions of some involved may have been good, there was no authorisation from the Wikipedia Foundation or ArbComm to do this, and since many of the editors involved in setting it up are POV pushers from the warmist camp, it is natural that skeptics are offended and will react to it.

(As for what would work, as far as fixing the corruption & poisonous atmosphere within the climate change pages, it would be mediation by parties known by both sides, advocates & skeptics, to be neutral. Neutral here would mean, an editor who has never shown any interest in the climate change debate, but he would likely suppose that the IPCC is probably right. Both sides would agree to the mediation. This much is common sense, but unfortunately, it seems, the warmist camp, with too much admin power taken too liberally, couldn't help themselves and have set themselves up as mediators in their own dispute with the skeptics. Honestly, this must look far, far worse to the general public than anything found in the Climategate letters. Whereas the IPCC is merely waning in credibility as a result of a number of scandals, Wikipedia appears corrupt to the core.)

I don't, personally, want anything to do with the climate change probation, given its illegitimacy, so I have largely just ignored it. Others have reacted differently, and that is understandable.

However, GoRight immediately objected, and, sure, he has reacted badly since. So it looks like he was provoked by the community with climate change probation in the first instance, and now is now banned less than 20 days later by the very same climate change probation, after reacting. This is, of course, what everyone expected probation to turn out to be: a weapon to be used against skeptics, rather than the real problem editors, POV pushers from either side.

I believe that you are, yourself, sincere in trying to fix the climate change pages, and so I appeal to you here: this block needs to be lifted. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that your depiction of the climate change probation, and particularly how it came about ("a boy ... probably too young to have ever even had a job" - WTF?), is complete fantasy. If you want anyone to take you seriously I think you have to do a lot better than that. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll note as an aside that this user's recent comments on GoRight's block have not exactly been a model of restraint: [2]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Although to be fair, they deleted that comment between when I saw it and when I might decide the best way forward from there. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but it seems pretty clear where this user is coming from. I suspect that this will be a self-correcting problem though - if he acts as he says he's doing (i.e. ignoring the probation) then he will end up getting blocked or topic-banned before too long. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you asked GoRight a question related to an exchange between him and me in which he parroted my words back at me [3]. I don't think that was really much of a problem. I just calmly asked him what he meant and then fixed my wording to remove the possibility of my words being misinterpreted. As that was a discussion on his talk page and if anything he would have felt under pressure and not I, I think it was well within acceptable parameters. I'm grown-up enough not to hold someone in high dudgeon for being a bit sarcastic. Not an ideal response to an editor coming to you with serious concerns, but then again not problematic in itself. The issue on which I wanted to express my concern was more important, both then and now. This was GoRight's creation of a pretty big essay on the Pcarbonn ban into the page at WP:AN. I don't think GoRight is intrinsically difficult to interact with, as long as you accept that he tends to adopt a fairly antagonistic style. As you're no doubt aware he isn't alone in these problem areas in adopting a battleground mentality. --TS 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@AH: I am aware of the problems surrounding the genesis and implementation of the climate change probation, but I think it has rather more support from the community and ArbCom than you indicate - [4], [5]. Disclosure: while I do not think I was the first to suggest such a solution, I argued for something similar to this probation in the first of the preceding links. That said, I did not invoke the discretionary sanctions in my blocking rationale. I am currently working with a few other editors to hash out a set of conditions under which they may continue to contribute to the project. Creative ideas that do not create an undue burden of enforcement are particularly welcome. @TS: Thank you for your perspective on your discussion, I will take it into consideration. I had read that exchange as considerably less productive than you describe. I think one of the problems with the battleground mentality is the stick (banning/blocking) is much more visible than the carrot (satisfaction at having contributed to the best encyclopedia possible). When editors start antagonizing each other, it seems that most people either get in on it or leave - what we need is some way to break the cycle, and catch and defuse it wherever it starts. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if my intervention at that point was soured by the misconceived enforcement request I had filed against GoRight the previous week. In retrospect it might have looked as if I was just looking for an excuse to have him censured. Since then as you know GoRight has increasingly perceived me as an enemy. My position (as outlined elsewhere) is that I want him editing articles and commenting on talk pages, but I want him to be talking about the topic, not the people. If he wants to talk about the people he should follow dispute resolution. I think we're all on the same page with this. We just need to build trust in the possibility of a solution. --TS 23:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

2over0, you said it all "the stick (banning/blocking) is much more visible than the carrot (satisfaction at having contributed to the best encyclopedia possible) to make the carrot visible, I been looking into gestalt coaching principles. When unknown editors are viewed as potential assets to be grown rather than whipped into compliance, then Wikipedia's potential will grow too. Each crack of the whip, takes a toll on the whole community and should be conducted prudently, an effectively. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0, if GoRight has been blocked for having a battleground mentality, you need to check out my talk page. This is what I put up with daily due to the perception that I am a climate change skeptic. Right now, three editors are harassing me for the remark I made about Ryan's photo. William M. Connolley is demanding an apology for "grotesque" incivility whilst in the same breath telling me that my conversation there with Ryan is "pathetic". I wonder, what on earth has this got to do with William anyway? Then Stephan Schulz came along and added some pointy sarcasm, and finally, Tony Sidaway warned me that I am not allowed to make personal remarks on my own talk page. (Um, what?) Are they going to be warned in turn? I don't think so. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As indicated by the level of activity at this page lately, I am currently somewhat overextended. This is precisely the sort of dispute that takes the longest to review, but failing to investigate the relevant background would be a disservice to all involved and an abuse of my position as an uninvolved administrator. Please escalate the issue to the appropriate noticeboard (probably WQA, from your description) if the matter cannot be resolved amicably at usertalk. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest unblock request

I am troubled that the substance of GoRight's latest unblock request does not comfortably line up with his recent conduct. He appears to be continuing to do his very best to encourage, direct, and inflame disputes despite being confined to his talk page. Ten hours before the unblock request ([6]) GoRight was endorsing the misuse of the climate change probation enforcement talk page by ZuluPapa5 as a platform for harrassment and namecalling directed at his perennial target, William M. Connolley: [7]. He is apparently watching quite closely, as he was the first to notice ZP5's violation of 3RR on that page and encouraged him to self-revert to keep his edit warring within the letter of 3RR: [8].

Encouraging vexatious misuse of dispute resolution pages and gaming of 3RR limits to enable edit warring is not, to my mind, "mak[ing] use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner", nor does it seem to "place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes. While a sufficiently twisted interpretation could perhaps let his 'guidance' of ZP5 fit around (behind, under) those terms, I would much prefer to see him understanding and abiding by the spirit of his propsed commitments before he is unblocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It was "misuse of the climate change probation enforcement talk page" by WMC [9] which seems to have caused a stir for GoRight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

TOAT, if there was a war by me there as you describe, who was on the other side? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not questioning the sincerity of GoRight's pledge, it would seem far more useful and constructive (to me, at least) to have concrete, specific criteria going forward. Pleasant-sounding but vague and totally subjective pledges to be judicious don't tend to work out very well in these sorts of situations. That's just my 2 cents; the decision isn't up to me. MastCell ^Talk 01:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Making it simple

Seems like GoRight would like to make this simple and move on: User talk:GoRight#What are the terms under which you will allow me to continue editing?. Let me know how I can help? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

2overO, regarding a simple solution, this seems relevant to me, Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_and_sanctions_for_disruption regards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Framework for unblocking GoRight

I would recommend strong, specific conditions for any unblock of GoRight; the framework that you've outlined forms a reasonable basis. While I am sure that GoRight offers his pledges in all earnestness, the fact remains that he has a demonstrated history of falling short of such commitments in the past. The last two (un)blocks in his block log are instructive:

Unblocked 3 December 2009 (after disruptive editing of Scientific opinion on climate change) with a commitment to pay special attention to WP:CIVIL and avoid further edit warring on the page [10]. Unblocking admin's log entry: "per request and good-faith agreement on user talk page".
Unblocked 6 January 2010 (after a general, broad pattern of disruptive editing) with the affirmation "OK, upon further reflection and off-wiki advice, message received. I hereby agree to be more constructive." [11]. Unblocking admin's log entry: "per promises to improve behaviour".

Regrettably, since you've had to reblock GoRight for essentially the same problems, it would strike me as counterproductive to unblock without clear boundaries to guide his future contributions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Creative Proposal

Hi .. I appreciate your are being pulled in many directions now a days (seem to show evidence for fairness and I know that takes time) ... when you have some time ... please review the Creative Proposal for GoRight's redemption on his talk page. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

While some degree of lateral thinking is definitely called for in this situation, I do not think that that is the way to go with it. Thank you, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well ... my opinion is Wikipedia is the ideal place to enact Restorative_justice (with restitution agreement) because no one owns anything that would require retributive payment (and retribution could be perceived as retaliatory). In cases where intentions are the key question, then a block may cause a confusing message. The cure should be for the WP:CIVIL offender to demonstrate honorable intentions in some way. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One week is fine

[12] but this should also include prematurely collapsing threads as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving is in this instance being used broadly to cover collapsing a thread, putting it in a discussion-box, and removing it as well as moving to the archive. Thank you for pointing this out, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight is asking for a reply to his question

User_talk:GoRight is asking for a reply to his comment from 3 days ago. Off2riorob (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

After watching just some of the comments going on about the climate articles in a couple of places I find it absolutely ridiculous all the way around. The behaviors are just not acceptable and the constant poking is just silly. You have to be exhausted already with all of it. May I suggest that maybe locking each and every article where the editors refuse to play nice? I mean, think about it, it give you and the administrators a break plus the other editors will have to find other places in the project to work, which would probably be a good thing. Two months of a lock down of the articles and the talk pages. After that time, see if everyone is ready to edit properly. I don't think it would hurt the project to shut down a half a dozen articles esp. since it would seem like nothing is getting done anyways. Thoughts? ;)--CrohnieGal^Talk 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0 is doing a good job (I know you're not disputing that, Crohnie). Other admins have fallen over when being nagged to do something, but at the moment 2/0's being asked not to do anything. So I suggest he continues doing what he's doing - not making rash calls, but responding after consideration in the best way he knows. He's not perfect, but he's the best we've got (that still sounds insulting - it isn't meant to be!) Verbal chat 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering this diff of your then I'll take your advocacy of 2/0 as proof that I'm right about his bias. Hell, I was "inspired" to do an RfA because of his actions and now he's closed my well-formulated section about Connolley in the probation - despite being asked twice by another admin to re-open it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I find harassment of anyone offensive, including the harassment of 2/0. I don't see how my actions prove anything about anyone else. Please remember, this isn't a battleground ... Verbal chat 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you flat out called for everyone who reported Connolley to be blocked despite the well-documented case of his various abuses and now you are saying 2/0 is handling the situation admirably. You also said those you wanted blocked wanted a "fringe view" in the articles and so a logical assumption is that your advocacy of 2/0 is because you think he is doing a good job suppressing this "fringe view." TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Help, help, I'm being suppressed! WMC has been putting a lot of thankless effort into maintaining due weight to majority scientific views on the topic, a concept many new editors find very hard to grasp. Incessant calls to highlight denialist views published in unreliable sources get pretty wearing, and 2/0 is showing good judgement. Admittedly in my opinion 2/0 may be getting a bit too much swayed by the numbers using civility claims to push minority viewpoints, but it's a difficult call and a willingness to be fair is clearly evident. Please assume good faith. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, this meme that WMC is "defending science" is demonstrably false by looking the actual edits. I guess that's a good thing to tell anyone who is uninvolved and uninformed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have serious reservations about Lar and LHvU being considered as neutral administrators regarding WMC, given WMC's bête noire status at a certain external forum in which they participate. But I suppose there's nothing that can be done about that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar and LHvU are no less neutral than 2/0 has been. ATren (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, I think by now 2/0 could probably need a break from all this bad faith dumped on him. Thegoodlocust, you are lucky to have an administrator like 2/0. Your rude behavior here and elsewhere probably wouldn't be tolerated by a lot of administrators. He is trying very hard to weight the issues and make fair decisions. What does he get for all of this? Nothing, you should be ashamed of yourself. Sorry, but I don't think any volunteer should be treated the way you are behaving. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think an admin should controversially close a complaint that highlights 10+ blatant BLP violations and refuse to correct that error when asked several times by other admins. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar has asked 2/0 to reopen the thread and he's hardly been given a chance to respond yet. At least wait for him to say "no" before voicing concerns with the imagined decision. I agree that the thread shouldn't have been closed, but it doesn't help to lose cool. Everything, will be alright everything, will be alright everything, will be alllriiiiiiiight as they say. :)--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, nobody is holding a gun to 2/0's head... ATren (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Crohnie :). Just for that, I will do my best to make sure that the 35 °F weather my computer says we have outside right now does not make it down your way.

That is certainly an interesting idea, and it would get around one of the problems with locking articles - too often, people just move smoothly to the next dispute on the list, leaving the issues unresolved. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't do 35 degrees, I wouldn't be able to move physically. :) You keep the cold up where you are, please. We are in the high 50's right now and though movement is difficult it actually feels good for a brief time. It's funny, hubby and I just heard the news right now about your 36 weather and laughed that I was commenting to you here about it. :) I figured from watching all of this without any care about any of it, that locking them all would give a needed rest. The pattern I am seeing is that when administrators see an article in a major dispute, the editors seem to take the issues to another article to dispute the same things. It's like a constant battle you all have going on. If the articles are locked down, I'd say a week or two to start, and the editors have to take discussions to the talk then maybe some resolutions can occur. If all of the articles are locked, there would be no other choice than finding a consensus. If a consensus is found about a dispute the editors can ask that the article be edited to add that part. The way it is now, the only thing happening is both sides are constantly making changes and nothing is sticking. Anyways, this is something that hasn't been tried that might be worth a go at to see if any progress can be made. If bad behavior continues at the talk page I would think the administrators watching could tend to them a lot easier. Anyways, just a thought. Don't get too cold! I don't know about you but I don't have clothes for these types of temps, at least not for any length of time. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-open second WMC thread?

Hello 2/0. Lar has asked a couple times [13][14] - but interspersed within other comments and so perhaps unnoticed - that the second WMC thread be reopened. It addressed other issues with WMC's editing that weren't covered in the current edition. I wanted to second that here. Would you mind opening it yourself? Otherwise I'd be happy to file another request myself. Maybe I can draft a clearer / more focused version anyway...

He's still making problem edits. These are all from today:

Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I nearly reopened it myself a short while ago. If it's not reopened and dealt with after awhile, I'll reopen it myself. WMC's behavior has been ignored and hand-slapped long enough. Unit Anode 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest in any reopening, it should be clear than an incremental effect in the result of both threads for WP:CIVIL behavior is desired. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

All of these are just vendetta-type stuff. There is no substance. In particular, no, Lar does not get away with calling for everyone to raise their game but somehow exempting himself (and I don't see any evidence that *he* did object) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I just added a diffs to my comment to this thread so you can find the two instances where Lar asked that the thread to be reopened. Sorry about that. I realize these requests get unwieldy and become difficult to follow closely. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything's a "vendetta" when people complain about you, it seems. If you continue apace, you're most likely going to find yourself topic-banned. The GW-related articles will not fall apart, even without their self-appointed panjandrum. Unit Anode 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Pointless", "Waste of time", "boring" and "dull" are the words I received in the past for anything related to correcting the editor who chooses to ignore warnings. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've also noticed the continuing (it seems even to be increasing?) pattern of problematic edits made by William. For example he responds to a notice that he should refrain from editing other people's comments (I thought that was a well established rule already?) and to refrain from deragotary terms by saying the reminder he was given is a "victory for the yahoo's (sic)". Are these continuing problems going to be addressed by you 2over0? Are editors posting notice of them to the appropriate noticeboard going to be threatened and attacked? I'm very uncomfortable with your involvement because you've been so aggressive in going after good faith editors trying to get these problems addressed and have left GoRight blocked all this time, but refuse to take any action when William's issues are pointed out again and again and again with diff after diff after diff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fairness can take some time; however, I agree GoRight and WMC seems to be a challenging comparison. AGF with GoRight, would be in order now. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

After a couple of months of steady harassment of WMC by a wide variety of IPs, sockpuppets, and named accounts, his behavior has started to deteriorate. There have been continual attempts to push a certain factually incorrect attack blog posting (and works derivative of that blog posting) into article after article. Claims of COI that have been repeatedly dismissed continue to be raised over and over again on page after page. In one of the coincidences that are so common on Wikipedia, there is considerable overlap between the accounts that have been harassing WMC and those that are complaining about him. Perhaps some people need to be told to back off. However, calling Global Warming skeptics "septics" was childish, and I support 2/0's action in telling WMC to stop. Cardamon (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I've attempted insertion of material from the New York Times, BBC and other major news outlets only to be told they weren't "right" (against WP:VERIFY. Also, Connolley has demonstrated a long-term pattern of BLP violations against skeptics and edits the articles of journalists and scientists that are critical of him. The only harassment is that people are finally getting fed up with the double-standard. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC's behavior hasn't "deteriorated." It's just that now it's not being ignored. Unit Anode 22:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

nudge

[15] From goright :)mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Demeaning names

I would have thought that considering the only very recent additional civility conditions applied to WMC in reference to demeaning other editors that this edit on his talkpage from yesterday is a violation of those conditions, he clearly refers to editors as the idiots. Could you let me know your opinion as regards this edit, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Especially in regard to these two parts of the recent closing report from yourself ... he (WMC)is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms and Please be careful when throwing around terms that might be interpreted to refer to your fellow volunteers - even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages.... I would have thought that whilst in discussion with SBH about the Skeptic editors on his talkpage that WMC referring to them as the idiots is a clear violation of the sections of the report that I have posted here. Off2riorob (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like a case of "if the hat fits, wear it". @2/0: Yes, please do let me know your opinion. You've thrown the trolls meat and they want more. I've been told before "if you don't like the comments on a user talk page, then don't watch it". Perhaps you'd care to offer this advice to O2RR? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to quit calling people derogatory names immediately after a request for enforcement found you were "required" to stop doing so? Unit Anode 15:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering as I saw you editing, if you could please answer my question, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding that I have a limited amount of time to devote to this website; coverage of matters about which I care more is slipping in some areas, but I would like to think that climate change can be a calmer editing environment than, say Israel/Palestine. As of lunchtime today, I had read every contribution from WMC for the past two weeks; this is basic due diligence in complex cases. The game here is to build the best free encyclopedia we can, and scoring points off each other at the RE board and elsewhere is immaterial to that goal. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have not even answered my simple request for a comment as regards my simple question. I have spent time and presented my simple question as regards an issue you are appertaining to be the administrator taking actions and reports, I find your failure to answer my simple straightforward well presented question very disappointing. I would like to suggest to you that if this is your position that you stand down from assumed authourity in this issue ans allow another administrator to take charge of a situation that you are failing to action correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You've not approached an answer to the question as to your disparity in enforcement between Collins and Connolley. Please take the time to answer the question that has been raised at the enforcement page with regards to that issue. Unit Anode 00:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC Diffs since your ruling

These are all diffs since you closed the WMC case.

In response to your notification on his talk: calls those who reported him "yahoos".
Later, calls them idiots
"If the hat fits, wear it" re-affirming the idiots and yahoos charge, and throwing in a "trolls" for good measure.

2/0, does this look like an attempt at compliance, or does it look like blatant defiance? When are you going to act on these? ATren (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that diffs to edits on 2/0's talk page are rather redundant. My assertion that you have a vendetta in this looks ever more correct William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice you're not denying that you've called other editors "yahoos", "idiots", and "trolls." Unit Anode 15:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley

You may remember my old probation request regarding MN. (Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive1#Marknutley). You may wish to review the comment by JzG - "I think at this point the outcome is, de facto, that marknutley is on notice to give more thought to is contributions and to be mindful of the potential to cause drama through ill-judged comments. I think we can probably leave it at that for now, if he does not heed this warning then it is likely we will find consensus for a topic ban of some duration." I suggest that this on your talk page is a direct violation of what MN was directly warned about. MN's "hunch" was pure speculation, backed by nothing more than his obvious dislike for WMC. Is there any reason whatsoever for MN to ever comment on WMC in the future? If you would prefer, I can file a fulsome probation request regarding MN - as you are almost certainly aware, I've been archiving his problmatic conduct for the better part of this month, or you can handle this as you would like. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC has been baiting MN for weeks. MN shouldn't take the bait, but this is just another example of WMC's disruption. Examples: calling him dishonest, veiled insult, incivility, "gratuitously refactor MN's errors" condescending response "This is really not that hard if you pay close attention", personal attack, implying he's a fool, incivility - "you just make yourself look ridiculous" ATren (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So file a report. I'm unhappy with WMC's incivility, but I'm more unhappy that MN is trying to create or propigate a false statement about WMC working for the CRU on wikipedia, you know, because one has real life consequences and the other doesn't, and all. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So you think asking a question is in fact an ill judged comment? File your probation request. and please provide me a link to your attack page :) --mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

MN, strike the question about his coding. Let them resort to petty ulterior motive accusations, you're above that ~~crap~~. ATren (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Struck out as requested, which i would also have done had i been politely asked and not had my post edited. mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Marknutley;

Because your comment remains legible, striking does not fully sove the problem. We do not strike violations of WP:BLP, we remove them. Please remove the struck portion of your comment. Thank you ever so kindly.

Yours in abject politness

Hipocrite. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked for politeness, and got it by the truckload :) I deleted the offending question :)

Dear Marknutley;

Thank you ever so much for your prompt attention. Your willingness to be reasonable when approached with politness is a disturbing reminder of how long it's been since I last wrote a formal letter.

Yours in victorian formality

Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See, was that so difficult? :-) ATren (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) ATren, I believe you've been one of the editors unhappy about "septic", even when used undirected. Are you happy to be describing H's comments as "crap" - does this fit with the standards of civility that you appears to expect from others? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you truly unable to see the difference between describing someone's comment as "crap" and describing a person (or groups of people) as "septic"? Unit Anode 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. But since you have raised it as a concern, I'll gladly strike it. ATren (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See, was that so difficult? :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you've completely ignored the fact that ATren was not calling a person or group of people "crap", as you were with "septic." Unit Anode 18:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is WMC continually given a free pass for his conduct? If anyone else called their fellow editors "idiots", "yahoos" and "septics", action would be taken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not just editors, but he has used them in an obviously BLP-violating manner (categorizing, by name a good sized number of scientists as "septics"). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You've been asked a question at the enforcement page

I know you're active now, since you imposed your draconian 3-month article ban on Gavin Collins. There have been questions raised about your proposal of no action against WMC for far worse conduct. Please answer them straightaway. Unit Anode 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fairly rude and peremptory way to phrase your demand. I'm curious whether you expect your complaints about incivility to be taken seriously when you seem to be unable to be civil yourself. When you believe yourself to be right about something, you seem to feel little need to be polite to people who disagree with you. No doubt WMC also believes himself to be right. Why do you expect him - or anyone - to adhere to a standard that you don't seem willing to live up to yourself? MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't compare my very straightforward (and, admittedly, quite frustrated) request here to what WMC has been perpetuating on his perceived ideological foes for a long time. I'm not the only one who is concerned about the heavy-handedness toward one side, and the kid gloves toward the other. My point was (and remains) that 2/0 has been actively editing, while almost completely ignoring these questions, and letting stand his practically nonsensical "move to close with no action" at the requests page. How is anything I typed above uncivil in any meaningful way? No name-calling, but simply a frustrated request for a response. Unit Anode 21:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your comment shows why it is a terrible idea to allow these breaches of probation to continue without addressing them. By not acting, the actions that were reported become the acceptable level of discourse. So now we get lots of people doing what was previously ignored, and boom, arbcom here we come. Now, in response to your comment, I think you have a chicken-egg problem on your hand. Arkon (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed close

I object to your proposed close. I need to reply on the sanctions page, but this is difficult to do in the current circumstances as the attempt to clarify the rules of teh game remains as muddy as before.

I would like a clear statement as to whether off-wiki statements re usable as evidence or not (or under what circumstances), and I would like any of the disucussion pertaining to statements that are deemed unrefable removed.

At the moment that talk page discussion has no clear result, it is just a discussion.

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Rules of the game. I will add something to the RE page on external links, but I think that for the time being this is going to need to be examined on a case-by-case basis with the understanding that only very rarely would off-site writings be cause for sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Connolley is often linking his blog as a way to insult people then it is justified in his case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Where do we stand on this. I object to your modified close, but (whilst not exactly enthralled) will live by your original (23:07, 25 January 2010). If that is OK with you, please close as such, and no-one needs to spend any more time or effort on this. If it isn't, then I'd like an opportunity to convince you otherwise, which will involve much tedious raking over of the evidence, which I'd rather not do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The modification of requested to required in the no-refactoring clause? I think that you have stepped over the line in some instances (diffs available upon request), as apparently does Lar. Most of the refactorings I recall offhand seeing from you have been productive, but sometimes a gentler touch is needed. You will still be free to call for a thread to be closed or request that another user rephrase their own comment. You are also free to appeal this sanction (I am assuming at this point that it will be placed), either immediately or after some weeks. In the latter case, having generally been engaged in productive discussion and showing examples where a clearly necessary refactoring was delayed overlong would probably help. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, over-the-line diffs would be useful, to see if we agree where the line is William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Still need those. Meantime, since Lar is insisting on "required", I object to he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, on the grounds that I haven't used that at anyone William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

88 hits, almost all from WMC, many recent. If I said "bullshit alarmist" 88 times, would I still be editing here? ATren (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Connolley, you had a section in your userspace devoted to calling certain famous scientists as "septics," which is also a massive BLP violation. Are you really so unaware of your own actions? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

88 hits, and not one of them a PA on anyone (and "many recent"? Including User talk:Silverback? Come on, do your work properly rather than scattershotting). This is as bad as failed google searches. Provide diffs of *actual* PA's William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It was never notable, but pushed in by the septics at the time. - "septics" referring to the editors who added the claim. This edit was last week. Couple with the recent "waste of time" and "fool" references, and we have a pattern, even during this probationary period. If we go back further, the pattern is shown to be long term.

And, BTW, the other dozens of "septic" references may not be direct attacks on editors, but they are soapboxing, and most likely BLP violations. If a noob showed up here calling climate scientists "alarmist morons" or something similarly derogatory, you would immediately revert as soapboxing, and they would be topic-banned if they did it more than a few times. You've used the "septic" smear dozens of times, over several years, at least one directed at editors, and you still defend it like there's nothing wrong. ATren (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your diff fails: there is no ref there to individual editors: indeed, you don't even know who I might be talking about. All the rest fail, for a similar reason. Go on: provide even one recent one referring to a psecific individual William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> Here you specifically categorize a number of people, by name, as "septics." Please explain how we are misunderstanding you - I can't wait. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole mess around this one is the biggest concern - the multiple collapses seem to have been received as antagonism. Quite generally, I wish I had seen that section before it got too out of hand; TenOfAllTrades actually mentioned it here, but I got distracted by other matters and forgot. I think that the issue of whether or not collapsing was good for the community is outweighed in this instance by the struggle over it, which was bad for the community.

That section was entirely pointless, as I think time has clearly shown. However, I'm prepared to leave stuff like that alone in future, if it makes you happy William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It would, thank you. Or, better yet, point it out and be the first on your block to up the level of discourse. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand, yes, the two removals of Will looked a bit petty, especially at the RE page; arguably, this was the point. On another hand, Miss Manners would not approve of addressing someone by first name without a formal introduction and permission; personally, I wish that all sales clerks everywhere would learn this and stop bloody taking liberties with over-familiarity (plus they get my nickname wrong). I think part of the problem is that the address was replaced with [PA redacted], which covers everything from mildly insulting to immediately bannable. I think simply replacing it with a preferred mode of address and noting in the discussion that you had done so might have worked better.

This was only done in cases where I had specifically asked the users in question not to do that. They were indeed doing it as a PA William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was intentionally rude, but I do not think that reacting as you did either helped highlight the issues with that thread (I, at least, treat them like AN3 reports and consider it negligent to fail to investigate the dispute(s) leading up to the request - muddying the behavioural waters does you no favors) or lessen the likelihood of recurrence. My biggest worry with this restriction is that some people may take the opportunity to taunt and poke and deliberately provoke you into violating it; I will have no part in rewarding that sort of behaviour, as it is a large part of what the probation was enacted to stop. You are not expected always to take the high road and "be the bigger man" or whatever (though, honestly, that would be nice), just to avoid adding to the problem when this sort of distraction crops up. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was intentionally rude - so can you point to the place where you've warned those editors not to repeat it? You've now banned me from removing what you yourself consider deliberate rudeness, so that would only be reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[16] - good idea, poor execution; yes I saw the thread at MN's talk wherein both diminutives are explained - it was still poorly done.

So you agree it should have gone - what would have been a better way of getting it out? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Replace it with the subject's actual name, request that the poster don't do that, and follow up with the counterexample using their own name at usertalk. If it becomes a pattern, file a report. Yes, diff-gathering for a report kinda sucks, but the status quo was a broken editing environment. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[17] - this one is odd. On the one hand, simple formatting fixes are well within the TPG. On another, I think it might be better if you were to be extra especially careful with respect to editors with whom you are engaged in an active disagreement, as it is not unlikely that words and actions will be seen in the worst possible light, leading to escalation.

You can't possibly complain about that diff (and I don't thinnk MN has, has he? I fixed his errors - as you say, this is well within guidelines) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though I think it is resolved now. This goes to being aware that your actions will be misinterpreted, willfully or innocently. Yes, I am aware that this is blaming you for the reactions of others, and that you noted the refactoring. I do not think that this is an enforceable diff, only that it would be nice to avoid such situations all together.

[18] and [19] - yes, that thread was unlikely to lead to any actual edits to the article, but it was active basically on topic. It would have been better to propose that it be closed, either first or after the revert. Also, the first edit summary was not really the best; it pretty much invited a revert.

The edit comment was deliberate: it invited anyone who disagreed with me to undo it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That is how it should be interpreted, yes; it could also be interpreted as provocative. Potential ambiguity is not your friend when trying to de-escalate a hotbed of dispute. The second close should have waited, either for someone else or for the discussion to die a natural death. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In summary, it is when the refactoring starts to be part of furthering or escalating a dispute (or can be misinterpreted that way - and people will tend to misinterpret things when engaged in a dispute) that I start to worry. I also proposed over at RE that archiving stale threads is uncontroversial, with a staleness threshold of two weeks - does that sound like a reasonable line for old discussions? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should use collapses more; the problem is space on the talk page, not when it gets archived. In fact it would be better to end up archiving sections that were collapsed, as a general principle William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, despite talking you're not listening, it would seem. Consider all my responses above to have been struck out William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident

WMC has removed [20] an entire section three times now with no consensus, i have asked him to stop on his talk page but i suspect he will ignore that. Would you please have a word as i do not really want to go back to enforcement. --mark nutley (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I thik it would be a good idea to look at that edit. Note, of course, that MN has conveniently forgotten the self-revert, so it is two times, not three. But the substance is: that section is (a) wrong, (b) has no RS, and (c) has no consensus for inclusion William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Section is not wrong just because you think it is. There is no consensus for it`s removal. It has a reliable source, newsnight. --mark nutley (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on, try a little bit of honesty: at least correct yourself over the removed-three-times William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Nigelj's compromise going to stop the edit warring, or does the article need to be locked while Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Code section plays out? The article has been quiet for almost three hours, but I am not sure if that is just because almost everyone has used their lone revert. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj's edit wasn't a compromise and broke WP:Consensus and WP:OR. You can follow the discussion here: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Proposed_removal. I am personally opposed to the locking of any article on Wikipedia as I don't think it ever improves the editing process, which is what is special/effective about Wikipedia. However I think policy is clearly being broken on these edits and if that's the route you choose to deal with it, OK. Blocks seem to be a better option though.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Or two reverts...depending on who you are... Arkon (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Was that snide remark aimed at anyone? I'm not aware of anyone with 2R there - but if you are, I urge you to draw it to 2/0's attention for a block. Hopefully you weren't relying on MN to be accurate William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was relying on your own words in this very section. Specifically:

Note, of course, that MN has conveniently forgotten the self-revert, so it is two times, not three.

The reliability of this statement I will leave to your judgment. Arkon (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You fail the context test. "Lone revert" refers to per day. No-one has 2 per day William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess that would be a no - despite being opposed on all sides, apparently that was not an acceptable compromise. The article is now on the pre edit war version (including the source that is either good for nothing except perhaps their own opinion on politics or solid gold). I am trying a soft-lock on that section - any further edits to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Code and documentation without consensus at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident will be considered edit warring. Please do not play at silly buggers with the definition of consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

you may be sure that given that ruling, MN and HiP will simply continue to insist that Newsnight is a RS for matters of climatology and computing science. Effectively, you have ruled for that nonsense to remain in indefinitely William M. Connolley (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, If newsnight get an expert in to look at code and then make a professional statement on that code then it is reliable. mark nutley (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not his code, he never worked for the group in question, your question is totally out of line, and your insertion of your question after I tried to help you save face by removing it is in poor form. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

@WMC - that would be one way of playing silly buggers with the definition of consensus, yes. Think of it like protecting the Wrong Version, but leaving the rest of the article open for now. I certainly have some awfully trashy code on my computer that I would be mortified to see exposed on the internet (not to mention a few Mardis Gras pictures), so I can sympathize with that position. There may be enough disagreement as to whether they are reliable for these statements that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, are you calling me a nonce? leaving the rest of the article open for the nonce I dunno were in the world you are but over here that is a child molester. I`m assuming it`s a typo but can`t for the life of me figure what you might have meant. mark nutley (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of linguistic trivia I wasn't familiar with. For the nonce is an expression meaning for now or for the time being, or even for the present (temporary) purpose. See also wiktionary:nonce, nonce word. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! I learned something new today - I meant it in the sense of wikt:for the nonce, meaning for now (as I have edited the above for clarity), not in any of the senses but the first one at wikt:nonce. I was completely unaware of the alternate definitions, and I apologize for what must have seemed an egregious and totally uncalled for personal attack. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok that`s cool, i learnt something new today as well :) I figured is was not a personal attack lol, but for the life of me could not figure what you meant :) Thanks. mark nutley (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Phil Collins, that's Nonce Sense (cf.Brass Eye). In the UK at least nonce is also a light hearted way of saying idiot, as well as having the meaning 2/0 intended. Verbal chat 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Response

What happened? Well, I may as well give you a short play-by-play, as it's probably worth pointing out how this has looked to me:

A thread dealing with WMC's WP:Civil and WP:NPA violations was closed as no action without the violations being addressed. Requests for its being reopened were made by myself and Lar (along with this strange constituency that has congregated around those viewed as fighting the good fight against "overly dogmatic scienctists." The whole thing feels very surreal to me, like being a character in a Feyerabend novel). These requests weren't acknowledged and the thread wasn't reopened. WMC was then given sanctions for other reasons, whereupon he continued to break WP:Civil, WP:NPA, and topped it off with WP:V/WP:Disrupt (deleting a section twice without consensus). At this point it seemed appropriate, advised even, to request enforcement.

I'm sorry if the request came across wrong, but I don't think it was wrong-headed... It'd be great to get a response from you on this.--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for explaining your perspective on the matter. If you would like me to strike, remove, or alter my comment there, you have only to ask.

I really wish I had done a better job explaining what I meant by no action / merge with previous. Some diffs and discussion from that section were considered, at least by me, in the unified result; some diffs and discussion from that section were discarded. I think if a similar situation arises in future I will attempt a full merge of the discussions as at least engendering different confusion. Also, I read Lar's statements as down there might have been better than up here, but I guess that would be another reason to deal with the hassle of moving comments around.

That section removal touched off some edit warring (blocks forthcoming if it continues), but there is enough talkpage discussion that I would not move it up to WP:DE territory. As for the rest, well, I am still at the wait and see stage. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for explaining yours. Wikipedia is a very different culture and it's not self-evident to me how actions and reactions will be viewed, so this helps.

Apparently WMC has made very important contributions to Wikipedia in the past, and it seems like this has tinted the lenses somewhat, for better or worse. As people have pointed out, others have been blocked for much less. I just know that since I came across him the very few constructive edits I've seen him make have been of the rv vandalism/copy-edit variety, and the rest inflammatory rants and jabs that have done a lot to create and sustain the polarization you see now.

I don't really care about striking the comment, I suppose, though I haven't looked at the thread since. It's up to you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I really would like an explanation for how WMC gets away with calling people derogatory names after your drafted motion "requiring" him to stop doing so? As someone who briefly "tangled" with WMC at Garth Paltridge, I'm sure I'll be accused by him of having a "vendetta", but I would like you to explain how the "required" language doesn't lead now to a stricter sanction based on his very recent behavior, even -- brazenly enough -- at this very talkpage. Regards, Unit Anode 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for me to accuse you of having a vendetta. Your comments make tht blatantly obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What disturbs me is that we were working constructively towards consensus on the lead, making good progress on a very contentious topic when WMC swoops in to stir the pot with his removal (twice no less) of an entire long-standing section without so much as a fare-thee-well. Looking over the diffs provided on the latest sanction request, I can't help thinking what the result would have been if my name were attached to those posts. Since no diffs were deemed required to pass judgment in my RfS it is difficult to make comparisons but I can guarantee you there were no posts of mine that were close to being that disruptive, and certainly I have never stooped to the egregious name calling and condescension that seems to be his SOP. And all this in an article where legitimate COI concerns have been raised and deemed moot because he "voluntarily" agreed to withdraw from that article and hadn't been disruptive "recently". I really am having trouble understanding what the rules are around here. JPatterson (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael H 34

Hi,

A RFC/U has been created regarding the conduct of an editor you have had contact with, User:Michael H 34. It can be found here. Please comment if you feel it appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC incivility thread on WP:GS/CC/RE

Hey there. I was reading the request for enforcement on Climate Change articles page yesterday, and I remembered again why I try to stay out of those subject areas. What a battleground they are. I'm in half a mind to ban a dozen editors from the entire area; perhaps that would calm things down. But that's for another day. As an uninvolved administrator, I did not really agree with your conclusion here, and added my name to a list of people requesting further analysis. Do you think you could take a look at that soon? Thanks, NW (Talk) 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I did see that, and I shall post it soon. The request for analysis is perfectly reasonable, though it does take time. Thank you for taking an interest in that board, as it is getting out of hand. Liberal bans and page protections sound like a good idea, though I do worry about damage to the continuing improvement of the articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha I've actually seriously considered requesting an "all-climatechangeeditor-topic-ban" but it sounded so doomsday to me. I do worry that the same kinds of editors would come back, but I'm not sure.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

nudge :)

[21] Guess who it`s from and win a cigar :) --mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

How

...do you keep your sanity? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself, I feel for the guy, he is really on a lose lose situation here :( --mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thirded. I officially hate climate change articles.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In an otherwise empty mayonnaise jar, hermetically sealed so that neither vapor nor spirit may escape. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

About the request for diffs

Hey 2/0. I think you may have misread the request. It was:

"Can I ask you to go through the diffs provided, and explain how each is not actionable, or not a violation of the probation?"

whereas what you have done is post a list of 67 diffs since the 28th of January with ~6 word descriptions tacked onto each. This wasn't what was asked for and it has issues of its own. Most editors aren't going to sift through that and I don't think the summaries you gave are descriptive enough to rely on if they don't. Could you please create another list to fulfill the request? or refactor the current one? In any case, I reponded at that section: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Request_for_analysis. Sorry. Also, everyone wants to know how you keep your sanity (see above).--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be absolutely unconscionably inappropriate to argue for or against a topic ban or similar sanction of a fellow volunteer but fail to review their recent contributions. The sum of all diffs is the public face of any Wikipedian, and it is not given to us to stand in judgment over only their grossest features. In presenting a case in favor of a topic ban, it is perfectly appropriate to put forth only those diffs that highlight the behaviour perceived as problematic, in the understanding that the remaining facets of the editor in question have been examined with an eye to finding a minimally disruptive solution (e.g. my offer to Gavin.collins that he move on to a different issue or a different venue, and the fact that if the proposed sanction is enacted he explicitly remains free to pursue other steps in dispute resolution). In arguing against the application of a sanction, it is necessary to present a user as a productive member of the community. This is a much subtler proposition, and cannot be demonstrated simply by arguing that this diff or that diff is a quality contribution. As there was some question as to whether my original statement of analysis had adequately examined the evidence base, I was quite appropriately and politely requested to provide a more transparent accounting for my reasoning. The diffs prior to the recent sanction were included in that decision, so for these purposes I considered only the edits since it was enacted. As this included only a relatively small number of edits, I decided that the best way to demonstrate due diligence and make sure that everyone was on the same page in examining the body of evidence would be to present that body in tutum with a brief summary of each edit.

Only Beer And Fine Grass Keep My Rattled Nerves Sane (link is safe for work, the phrase is a mnemonic for stellar classification). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read this in an "Oh man I love you bro but seriously!?" voice(prefaces are always written after the prefaced): God, the diffs neglected by your 67-diff list were not covered by the previous request. WMC was sanctioned for using the word septic and for refactoring comments, based off of a discussion that only included any of those diffs because I added them a very short while before the "ruling." In my request I was very careful only to include instances that demonstrated behavior not discussed in that ruling and not enforced by that ruling [the French have a word I always want to use in these kinds of instances in place of "discussed" and the like: abordé. It's a wonderful word.]. After all, what else would warrant a different/new enforcement?

I do understand that you need to go through all the diffs, but an unasked-for pasting of 67 on a talkpage along with rosy descriptions doesn't help things. Time constraints dictate that only a certain percentage of the people will look through any percentage of those, and those that don't will be mislead (a case of "providing the well with an antidote"). It was astonishing to compare your descriptions of Goright's preblock diffs and their corresponding content - with your description of WMC's preblock diffs and their corresponding content. It might be worth looking through the two sets yourself. Can you see how that comes across?

I am the first to admit that preconceptions color my interpretation of any given material. I have to read comments from editors I have a particular opinion about twice. The first run through is almost invariably wrong, the second I start to realize what they meant. This happens, and it's okay. But man, it is definitely happening here.

Sorry to take up so much space.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you need a break I'll watch over the implementation of the climate change probation

I might need you to RfA for me though. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

Hi 2/0, I'd like to ask that you reconsider your proposal/ruling for Gavin.collins. In my view it's quite clear his comment is no different from the kind of bluster we've just seen from WMC in response to his sanction. Whatever reasons there may be for treating editors differently, which we may or may not agree on, I do not see how the response to a sanction is something that should be treated under different standards. Similarly it seems to me the proposal that he leave behind the merge proposals is at least quite adequate, and that anything else would be somewhat punative and arbitrary, if it is just based on the idea that he can be somewhat difficult to deal with in a general sense. If not then I think a stronger response to WMC is called for, although as I said that is not something I would like to see either. I know you are trying to evaluate these cases neutrally, as I am, and I think you're doing much well. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than the fact that many people seem to find them difficult to collaborate with, I really do not see a lot of parallelism between those reports. Gavin.collins is well aware by now that his talkpage conduct has reached the level of disruption, was offered a when it is not working, try something else, eh? solution, but declined. Seeking outside input as outlined in WP:Dispute resolution, which was the obvious alternative to continuing to push a proposal that had been evaluated and rejected, remains an option. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0, are you saying that WMC's actions have not been disruptive? You've warned him, and he ignored your warning (in fact, spitefully rejected it with a new attack) yet you still refuse action there. How much more evidence do you need?

I repeat my earlier call that you withdraw from this probation, as I don't believe you have demonstrated that you can enforce the same standard for editors on both sides of the debate. You ignored that earlier request, and therefore I am repeating it. ATren (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The one-sided nature of these enforcements is becoming quite absurd. This is all most likely going to end only if the arbcom steps in and does what the current crop of enforcement admins seem unwilling to do: offer a broad topic ban (or at least a NPA/Civility restriction with some teeth) of WMC until that point in which he demonstrates a modicum of ability to keep from insulting those with whom he disagrees. Unit Anode 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me there must be a limit on the extent someone's statement of their opinion can be seen as disrupting Wikipedia, when the opinion is relevant to the article, and the statement does not attack other editors or violate policies. One can say, Gavin, if you want to accomplish something here then you might want to try something else, and even, Gavin, please see that consensus on this point has been established so please do not expect further silence to indicate consent. I would not expect that to be the very moment when we say, Gavin, if you express that opinion one more time you will be banned from editing or commenting on this article. You know? Disruption should mean things like starting another RFC after one has just ended, or insisting on making the edit even after it has been rejected, not just stating that you maintain a particular opinion. Indeed, there must be a line between the permissible statement of one's opinion, at any point, and disruptive pursuit of a rejected argument. It is not clear to me where that line was crossed here.

That's a bit of a tangent. The problem is we had a perfectly reasonable proposal to say that the editor shouldn't pursue this issue any longer. Then, because he complains (and in fact it seems you saw some legitimacy to the complaint) BozMo and you decide to raise it to an article ban. This was mostly, but not entirely, BozMo's doing. I am sure you see the need to be perceived as neutral in this venue, and hence to operate by clear standards, and in that light I'm asking you to consider whether this is consistent with the treatment of WMC in the last couple of days. I think it's clearly not, and I don't see any reason in this situation why it shouldn't be. Mackan79 (talk)

The GC thing needs a resolution, or clarification as to whether it is resolved. Is your last post there final? What are we waiting for? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Third request

2/0, this is my third request; my first two went unanswered.

I am requesting that you remove yourself from enforcement on the global warming probation, and I am further asking that you undo decisions that you've made on that page. I also think you should unblock GoRight, who has for some time been requesting your input for unblock conditions. While I believe GoRight has some issues to resolve, your indef block and lack of action thereafter is unacceptable given your lack of similar action against WMC, who has behaved worse than GoRight and yet he remains without sanction. Best to leave GoRight's status in the hands of other admins who are not as involved as you are.

I believe your enforcement has been biased towards one side of the debate, and while we all appreciate your efforts at remaining neutral, I now feel that there is enough evidence to demonstrate that bias unequivocally. This is in no way an accusation of bad faith; it is a friendly request to withdraw and thereby save the hassle of formal dispute resolution. ATren (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ATren, your obvious biases in this are obvious. You cannot possibly even begin to believe yourself a neutral editor calling for neutrality. A comparison of my and GR's edits will make it very clear why we have been treated differently. You have thoroughly aligned yourself with the skeptic "side", which is GR's side, which is why you are defending him William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps he believes in equal treatment for all? --mark nutley (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not defending GR, nor will you see any diffs of me defending him since his indef block. I personally believe he crossed the same line you've been crossing. My problem is the unequal treatment of offenses by editors on opposite sides of the debate: GoRight crossed a line and he was indef blocked; you crossed a line and 2/0 defends you. That's a problem, and it needs to be rectified. It also extends to 2/0's other recent actions, such as his knee-jerk reactions to JPat and Gavin Collins, both of which are suspect given his lack of action against you.

Taken on their own, 2/0's actions against JPat, GC, and GoRight might be considered acceptable, but in light of his lack of action against your clear transgressions, they are clearly biased. I am asking him therefore to cease involvement based on that, and I believe the evidence is strong enough to seek formal action should he refuse. This is a polite request on my part to avoid that. ATren (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ATren, my interpretation of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoRight&action=history differs substantially from yours. I proposed on the 24th a framework for working towards a conditional unblock. Including that one and the initial detailed blocking statement, I have made nine substantial posts related to this block, or about 20 kB of plaintext. I also submit to you that the three actions (or two actions and one that is currently at the proposed-but-likely-to-be-enacted stage) you list above were taken only after careful review of the relevant diffs in full context, as befits any such sanction of a fellow volunteer.

I respect that we humans are ill-equipped to evaluate our own biases. I hope you can accept that I strive for neutrality in my actions under the probation, without reference to a false sense of balance amongst the several "sides". I am very wary of any request for action against another user originated by anyone active in the probation topic area, as there is substantial potential to bias my information streams and thus my actions. With that in mind, if you would like to share your thoughts, rationations, and collated diffs by email or with a link to your userspace, I would like to consider them. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 11:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been striving for neutrality, no doubt, but the evidence indicate you have not achieved neutrality. I am still waiting for a detailed justification of JPat's article ban, which you later retracted but only after much discussion and apologies by JPat. In the case of JPat, you jumped right to strict enforcement with nary a warning, and based on only two article reverts. That is as heavy-handed as these things get, and afterward you were very reluctant to overturn it -- yet here you are presented with dozens of abusive diffs and you are defending the editor.

Now it seems the same is being played out at Gavin Collins -- indeed, he may deserve a sanction, but surely his behavior has not been as persistently bad as WMC's has been (look at all the diffs), and yet once again you are more than willing to jump right into a 3-6 month sanction with little hesitation, even as you defend WMC's brazen "idiots and yahoos" smears. As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is all right there on the enforcement page, I don't need to collect another diff, and at least 5 others seems to agree, and a few of them are completely uninvolved.

If this what you call even-handed enforcement, then you should be prepared to defend it formally because that's where it's going. ATren (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. You were asked to explain why WMC was being allowed to call other editors "yahoos" and "idiots", immediately following your "requirement" that he not do so. You still haven't done so. Unit Anode 14:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're a broken record. Find something of value to say, or better still something of value to contribute to the actual encyclopaedia William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Come now WMC, that is hardly WP:CIVIL is it, my old mum used to say to me, if you don`t have anything good to then say noting, good advice i have always felt :) mark nutley (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take you own advice William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you all end this conversation now? Thank you. NW (Talk) 20:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

FWA Footballer of the Year

You might recall a discussion about 1RR at FWA Footballer of the Year last month. Take a look at the current edit history of that article. --HighKing (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that WMC often removes others' comments from his talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That is about enough of that, if you please. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

so he can get the last word in discussions. I don't suppose that violates his incivility probation? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh nm, you already said that it applies to usertalk. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that 2over0's statement doesn't prohibit WMC from removing comments from his own talk page. Such a prohibition would be without precedent, and would to boot be far too readily gameable should editors wish to harrass him. We let blocked vandals remove content from their talk pages; the purpose of a user talk page is to facilitate communication with that user, not to act as a repository of disputes, scarlet letters, or bickering. Editors who find that their comments on WMC's talk are uwelcome should bring any significant concerns to an appropriate forum — but 'WMC doesn't want to talk to me' isn't an actionable problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I quote, "[User:William M. Connolley]] is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done." Connolley has a long habit of deleting other people's comments on his talk page, people who are trying to engage him civily, and he appears to be doing this either to get in the last word or provoke them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile taking this to WP:AN for outside opinions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No need for that yet; his warning was given and the language was clear. The only question is whether or not the rules apply to WMC or if the requirements will be changed so they retroactively don't apply to his behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust, please assume good faith. Yes, the lack of action regarding WMC's misconduct is unfortunate, but continually harping about it is only going to alienate your fellow editors. I suggest that someone who is familiar/comfortable with filing such a request simply do so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors can remove what they want from their talk pages. I don't think his restriction changes that. ATren (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking at first but then I looked at talk page guidelines and it specifically mentions user talk pages and the wording in the probation does not specifically state article talk pages. It appears that WMC has violated the letter of his probation. The problem that I am finding is whether this violates the spirit of the probation. Did the terms of his probation mean to include all talk pages or just article talk pages? I don't know. That's why someone should bring this up to the admins and find out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the warning specifically mentions that it applies to user talk pages. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But even blocked users are given editorial control of their own talk. I don't think it's a violation, and even if it were, I don't think it's worth pursuing, . ATren (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Even blocked users can have their talk pages protected from editting. I guess we'll see if WMC's warning will be applied or rewritten/reinterpreted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Both you and AQFN seem to think that clarification from the admin community is needed. Instead of continuing to use 2/0's talk page as a forum it would be better for you to pose it at the appropriate venue (probably WP:AN). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think "clarification" is needed - I think action is needed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this is NOT a personal vendetta against a fellow editor. If WMC didn't honestly realize he was violating the terms of his probation, I have an ethical problem with any action being taken against him. We're supposed to assume good faith here. However, I don't see anything wrong with asking for clarification so we know going forward whether this is allowed or not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly seems that way (while we are on the subject of deleting comments). I restored the comment because no individual was named, and thus no violation took place. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> I personally think it is clear that he has already violated the terms of his probation due to his other actions and clearly uncivil statements, but unfortunately there is a "subjective" factor to those comments, which apparently translates into inaction. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of User talk:William M. Connolley is to communicate with that user and that any removed posts remain in the archive, I do not think that such removals violate the intention of the prohibition. I have asked the other two administrators who commented there if they disagree with this view or would object to an amendment to the formal wording indicating such. Thank you for bringing this up, as the matter should have been considered before the close was implemented. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It does say "editing others' talkpage.." which seems to preclude any restriction on editing his own tp, no? JPatterson (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't say "others" talkpages - you appear to be misreading it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically (part of it) says, "The area of probation is to be interpreted to include anywhere that a topic related to or a dispute stemming from climate change is being discussed, including but not limited to articletalk, usertalk, and WP and WT namespaces." You appear to have been confused by the section that says, "User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done; he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos." TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In short, you left out the word "posts" when quoting the restriction - which gives it an entirely different meaning. Please be more careful in the future. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I think at the very least this should be clarified to prevent him from summarily deleting other people's comments. Editors are still trying to communicate with him about his behavior and he is refusing all attempts at communication. Obviously harassment shouldn't be allowed, but if someone refuses to recognize behavioral problems then they will never try to fix them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread is an excellent example of why users are allowed to remove posts from their talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am missing something surely? WMC's own talk page is not subject to probation because it is not the talk page of a climate change article. His specific bit says "WMC is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation". which does not apply to his talk page because it is not a page subject to this probation. Is there any good faith argument for saying his own talk page is part of the climate change probation (even interpreted widely)? If not we are wasting time here... --BozMo talk 21:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you missed this, I'll post it again, his probation says, ""The area of probation is to be interpreted to include anywhere that a topic related to or a dispute stemming from climate change is being discussed, including but not limited to articletalk, usertalk, and WP and WT namespaces." The probation also specifically says that guidelines which would normally allow him to redact/delete/archive posts do not apply to him - and those rules cover the latitude normally given to one's own talkspace. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is silly, and reflects badly on those making the complaint. Verbal chat 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shhh! Don't tell them William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it reflects badly when people constantly delete part of a conversation in order to make it look like they got the last word due to their oh-so-amazing arguments. I have no problem with you deleting/archiving entire conversations - that would be the mature thing to do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This kind of stuff? [22] - you're right, it is terribly immature William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> I was thinking more along the lines of this this this and this (all over the last day). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I should note, the diff WMC posted was of my removal of his trolling at my talkpage. He was clearly scrummming for a fight, so I removed it as the trolling it was. Unit Anode 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Which confirms the very sensible right of each editor to remove any comments from their own talk page, no matter how it looks to outsiders, and also displays remarkable bad faith. Accusations of trolling do rather tend to resemble "scrummming for a fight", a more polite edit summary would have made removal of the post unremarkable. Not always attainable, but politeness pays. . . dave souza, talk 09:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Um, things went off into the weeds on my talk too, a bit anyway. I just popped by here to say I think you should go ahead and make the clarification you were suggesting, if you hadn't already, to make it clear that this didn't apply to WMC's own talk page. ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

[23] @ global warming controversy, please take a look, you have guys removing an entire section on the basis they do not like one of the refs, why they are unable to remove a ref and feel the need to remove an antire section of good faith contributions is beyond me. --mark nutley (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected for two days by NuclearWarfare, now. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there 2over0, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:2over0. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Some status...

Re: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC I think that one's baked. All the involved admins seem to have come to rest, and it's closable with the sanction wording you drafted. Do you want to do the honors?

Re: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#142.68.95.166.2C_142.68.92.131 I have your CU results for you, what to do next? I dunno. Try the rangeblock, maybe, but write a really good log entry so that any anons know what to do... as per usual. Up to you. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya apparently our mails crossed on that first one. :) Advise if you need more CU work on the latter. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great mimes and all that. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your debt

DuKu (talk · contribs) seems to have taken your restriction on me as license to break 3RR on ExxonMobil. Perhaps you might care to remind him, forcefully, of the rules, and spare me the trouble of putting in a 3RR report (it would be too much to expect Lar to bother, I realise) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk Global Warming

Would you please ask WMC to change his post here [24] I did ask him but all he did was fix a typo :( There is no need for the sarcastic digs at wattsupwiththat or Joe d'Aleo. Thanks --mark nutley (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If that discussion goes further off the rails in the next day or two, please collapse it. That could be phrased more productively, but there might be something there for the Responses section, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Filter

Hi!

Could you take a look at the content of the dispute at Great Filter? Robin Hanson, the prof who developed this hypothesis, has written quite a few articles about the future of technology and humanity, is a member of the Future of Humanity Institute, and so on. This makes him a futurist, by definition, and is very well supported by a large number and variety of reliable sources. So we should call him a futurist, in the view of 2 of the 3 editors working on this article. The remaining editor does not like this at all, and insists it is OR, or interpretation, etc. This seems very odd to me, since WP:OR explicitly states

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly."

To the two of us, this seems exactly what we are doing, and your opinion on this issue would be most helpful.

Also, you locked the article in the anti-concensus state, in so far as 2 vs 1 can be described as concensus. This induces a practical problem, as the remaining editor is now perfectly happy with the locked state, has no reason to try to resolve this issue, and has indeed stopped discussing. Two things might help here - perhaps after half a week or so, swap it to the concensus state, or better yet, look at the arguments in addition to the reverts - perhaps you could add your voice on the side of reason, as you see it.

Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this looks like a job for Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I know I protected The Wrong Version, but if there is a consensus that the other version is better, please request unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight

I have made a proposal for unblocking this user on his talk page. Please read it and give your feedback. Thanks. Trusilver 09:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at User talk:Trusilver#GoRight's unblock conditions. While a reasonable first stab, I am not confident that the proposed probation terms would resolve the central issues with GoRight's conduct and would discourage accepting the terms as written. Perhaps you could recommend appropriate wording? A 2009 arbitration case included the following remedy; I think that essentially identical wording would do well here:

[Editor] is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.

The condition at the end still permits the editor to participate in AfD (MfD, IfD, CfD...), RfA, ArbCom elections, and the like. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Hey 2/0, I think perhaps the edit history made it seem as though there was a large edit war when there wasn't. Oren0 reinserted the old "Code and documentation" section that had resulted from consensus built in the "Long/Short/Very Short" section on the talk, which was then reverted by Scjessey for having broken refs (Scjessey didn't speak against the addition itself), at which point I fixed the refs myself and put it back. That was all well and good (though I suppose it could have seemed ominous). But then WMC removed the section, for the third time and for his old reasons (over and against WP:V). The relevant diffs can be found here:

Would you consider removing the content lock in place of sanctions on WMC for this disruptive behavior? --Heyitspeter (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I did see that, but thank you for presenting you point so clearly; it is much appreciated. There remains a bare bones coverage of the point in the article, which I think changes the context of the most recent diff. I read Scjessey's edit summary as preferring discussion but not outright objecting to your later fixed replacement. Archive 24 and the present page indicate broad agreement that that issue in particular and the article as a whole focus too much on minutia at the expense of more encyclopedic treatment of the topic. I do not think that any of the recent edits to that article rise to the level of disruptive editing against consensus, though I admit to some surprise at Nightmote and Hipocrite's rewrite. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just note that while the context for the most recent diff could perhaps be interpreted as different in some sense (as you note), according to WMC it was not. His edit summary read: asbefore: this section is broken. Please consider that in going over these edits again. Any diff can be rationalized with enough effort, but they should be taken on their own terms.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently AQFK [sic] filed a request over these edits, anyway. --Heyitspeter (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that page had been awfully quiet today - thanks for the heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, good luck.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate lock

I don't know how close you've been following this but the recent flair-up was instigated by this massive re-write which, while done in a good-faith attempt to improve the article, was done without discussion much less consensus. You've now locked in this version thereby rewarding bad behavior and removing some sections about which hard fought consensus had been achieved. Prior to the re-write, with the exception of the drive-bys, we were working quite collaboratively and making progress. I think the fair thing to do would be to rv to the original and see if we can't continue to make progress from there. JPatterson (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Without making any comments on which version should or shouldn't be reverted to - WP:WRONG addresses this quite adequately - I wish to note that these spurious claims of "consensus" are becoming rather tiresome William M. Connolley (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

spurious claims of "consensus" - now there is something on which I believe we all can agree. This is not a rant at either of you particularly, but far too often I see editors making quick claims of consensus when a more accurate assessment might be in the last four hours, two editors argued yes, one raised a minor point for discussion, and one argued no but we can ignore that one because consensus is not unanimity. Consensus is not a game like taking a product survey with the halting condition of having your product ahead in the polls. It is agreeing to work together to write the best encyclopedic summary of how the relevant experts have described a topic. Okay, side rant over.

As for Nightmote and Hipocrite's rewrite, there are times when it is appropriate to revert through protection, but I do not believe that this is one of them. There is currently a discussion at the talkpage dealing with this point; if consensus emerges from that discussion in the next day and a half that the old version was better or should be used as the basis for point-by-point discussions, then I or anyone responding to {{editprotected}} can change it then. If nothing else, I will admit to being pleased to see editors working and expressing opinions together with those they traditionally argue against. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your self-describe rant above: It's a broad swipe that somehow still manages to miss the mark. This is constructive, collaborative editing by any stretch of the definition- collaboration that WMC took a minimal part in except to add unbridled and unsupported negativity. Those involved hammered out a compromise that those involved could live with. Are you contending that after all that, for a single editor to re-remove the entire section is conducive to the consensus building process? JPatterson (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident protection

Could you consider taking this off early? I'd like to add a bunch of images, and replce the emails section with the summary that has reasonable acclaim (and no dissent), and input from both "sides." It's a shame that some editors don't get it - perhaps you should ban them from the article? All of them. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. The particular issue that led to protection is being treated at the talkpage and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#William M. Connolley 2. Please be mindful of the restrictions in the editnotice and be especially careful in interpreting WP:consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop abusing your admin tools

It is inappropriate for you to continue to abuse your tools to go after one side of the AGW dispute and to promote a particular version of article content. Your full protection after William's edit warring to remove a section is another example of your inappropriate involvement.

Please stop abusing your position of trust within this community to promote a particular point of view that you happen to agree with. This is not appropriate behavior. I understand that you may have strong opinions on the issue of Global Warming, but that's all the more reason you need to allow uninvolved admins to deal with the situation. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered, three threads up: #Climategate lock. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is particular flare up is being discussed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#William M. Connolley 2. See also: [25]. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

re Admins Noticeboard/Climate Change

Hi. I would be grateful if you would run your eye over Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#Initial conclusions, regarding a dispute over a section in the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. Can you see if there is any fault in my logic, and its application, or a misrepresentation of other editors actions or my understanding of policy. Although I would be grateful if you would note if you concur with my findings, at that page, I would understand if you didn't. I would also be grateful if you would note any dissent or disquiet in regard to my comments, again at that page. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, thank you for going into the history of that article so carefully - having done it myself, you have my sympathies. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I added some clarifications of the timeline to LessHeard vanU's initial conclusions section. I think NigelJ's implementation of the re-write is a key piece of the puzzle that both you and he seemed to have missed. Thanks for your efforts here. JPatterson (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another unreleated issue on the same page. In justifying WMC's removal of the section you wrote "As most of the material remained, however, I read this as a minor issue of presentation, not a fundamental one of edit warring.". Huh? He removed the entire section. Could you clarify your meaning? JPatterson (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As usual, the thread is spiralling off into irrelevance. But I hope you've noticed I've counted and found that "out" is in a majority. While it doesn't prove consensus to remove, it destroys the notion that there was consensus to keep William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You may also note my comment that the issue is currently moot, since after my long promised and agreed split of the section to a new detailed article, another editor has sensibly made a concise WP:SUMMARY on the main article which doesn't get into this awkward and poorly sourced detail. Climatic Research Unit documents currently includes the least worst version, hope we can improve it there. Oops, spoke to soon. While I was discussing this, CoM was editing the article and has restored the battleground.[26] . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Content restriction violation

I wanted to point out that this edit broke the content restriction. I've asked the editor to self-revert (here), but figure I should let you know in case of resistance as you're the protecting admin.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I read that as a normal edit and a normal revert, but any restriction so open to interpretation is not serving its intended purpose. WP:Edit warring will be strictly interpreted, but Wikipedia is really not a good environment for trying to establish too many arcane rules. I wanted an unambiguous metric, but interfering with article development really would be an abuse of the mop'n'bucket. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just this at the talkpage to that article. Thanks for pursuing this with me.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Loophole?

Now that Dave S. has split the article from which I am banned, I suppose one could argue that I am free to edit in the fork. I've decided not to make such an argument and sit out the rest of my ban. Clarification on this though might be appropriate in case it should come up in the future on a longer ban. Regards. JPatterson (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that in general article bans should be interpreted conservatively, and any such extension would require formal extension either with the imposing admin or at WP:GS/CC/RE. With a direct spinout article, I expect that it would probably be covered, but notice would be required of that interpretation before any edit could be deemed actionable. As you are willing to just wait the week without inflaming the drama I will not cogitate on it further. I would not want to find a situation where someone proposed that adding material to some related article would be covered by an article ban - extending an article ban to a topic ban would require a new action. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Though I wasn't asked to comment here, I'd like to. It has been my hope that the spin-off article will allow the parent article to be a more focused discussion on the stolen UEA/CRU documents. To my (often clouded) mind, the UEA/CRU scandal is a single event involving global entities like IPCC, the Copenhagen Conference, and various national bodies. The actual emails and code are much more pedestrian, and an article on that topic would seem to invite comments from more obscure parties such as universities, college professors, and magazine editors. I'm sincerely hoping that the spin-off article will be more free-wheeling and allow editors on both sides of the debate the opportunity to clearly outline why these documents are (or are not) significant. I believe that spirited debate in that space will produce a lean, tough, well-sourced article. Nightmote (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Usernames

2^0, I have replied to your comment. If you'd like to institute a username policy on when and in which cases short forms and abbreviations are allowable, the place do that is the Village Pump.

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point or attempt to engage in arbitrary enforcement actions to push your point of view by targeting editors you disagree with on content issues. You also need to refrain from admin involvement on the AGW articles because of your repeated refusal to enforce civility and edit warring policies violations on William, while going after other editors on dubious, arbitrary and nebulous assertions per your personal whims. That's not how things are done here and your abusive behavior has been very disruptive. If you have contructive input on how the AGW content can be improved, please offer up your ideas at the appropriate venues. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, ChildofMidnight. Your phrasing above, "don't...engage in arbitrary enforcement actions to push your point of view by targeting editors you disagree with on content issues" looks like an allegation that 2over1 has a direct conflict of interest in his enforcement. Do I read you correctly? --TS 18:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted repeatedly by several editors here and elsewhere, 2^0 has repeatedly disrupted legitimate requests for enforcement actions needed to address William's incivility, edit warring, and wikilawyering. He's also gone after editors trying in good faith to have notable criticicisms and controversies included in the encyclopedia to balance the global warming science and political coverage. This pattern of biased enforcement actions clearly establishes an inappropriate approach to mediating the content dispute. It is not constructive or acceptable, and it needs to stop. I have no doubt that 2^0 has strong opinions on global warming issues, and he may well believe that it's important to quash opinions and viewpoints he considers fringe. But that's not his role as an administrator and it's inconsitent with our policies and procedures. As I've noted above, he's welcome to make his case in the relevant discussions, but it's ceratinly not okay for him to abuse his admin tools in order to push his personal perspectives and opinions of the science and political issues involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those things are true, but if you really believe them, then you should open an WP:RFC/U. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your implied threat on my talk page

I believe these are important issues that have a direct bearing in the tone and POV of the article, and I resent the implied threat of your note. I would like to know if you have sent similar notes to the AGW True Believers.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Greenhouse effect

I've added the probation notice to Talk:Greenhouse effect. Seems it was missed and you have warned Chicco3 regarding their edits there. Vsmith (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I should have checked that - thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A brief request ...

A few of us have started a proposal to try and resolves the never ending stream of rename requests for Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and are working behind the scenes to gather support for it here. TGL had been mentioned by ChrisO as someone who might be useful to have on board with the proposal. Given his recent topic ban would you be willing to make an exception to allow him to simply endorse this proposal (if he is so inclined)? Every show of faith in the proposal will help to bring others on board. Thanks for your consideration. --GoRight (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The whole point of a topic ban is that the standard invitation to edit this page does not apply. Their contributions have been disruptive, and it is best to make a clean break.

Thank you for working on this proposal - anything that calms that article down has my full support. I am not sure, though, why the discussion is at your talkpage. Is this a hash out some ideas before presenting a solid proposal at articletalk discussion? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making things up - do you feel that your credibility is too high (I can assure you it isn't :-)? The ban is clearly supportable. Indeed, it has wide support. Unilateral is irrelevant - what were you expecting, some kind of caring, sharing bilateral ban that TGL would agree to? The point is that post imposition none of the watching admins have complained, nor have those like you who defend TGL chosen to bring it up for review elsewhere. For the obvious reason William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The preceding comment is in reply to this post removed (presumably) by the author. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So he says [27]. Why as a anon, we may never know. Why total removal rather than the more obvious striking, we may never know William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh, I smell a conspiracy! ATren (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

lanthanide to lanthanoid page move

Please see this discussion regarding the old page move of lanthanide to lanthanoid. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How to Proceed?

Could you take a quick look at this WP:Coatrack. I've outlined numerous BLP issues here. After getting no responses, I made the edits to remove the objectionable material in a series of edits starting here. (I did it in a series so each rationale could be summarized). The changes were reverted in mass without discussion here. Requested self-revert on users talk page. Non-responsive so I reverted and filled a BLP notice here. My changes we're reverted again here, again with no attempt to justify the sourcing as required by WP:BLP. I've tagged the article {BLP dispute}, and add the blp warning template to the users talk page.

The issue with sourcing in this article should be completely non-controversial. It is using primary sourced data to draw conclusions and strings multiple sources together to synthesize points not made explicitly in any. References to wikilinks, blogs and non-existing web pages abound. Not sure where to go from here. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never actually edited Michael Behe, but I consider myself involved on all intelligent design related topics for the purposes of WP:INVOLVED; please take this as the comment of an editor, not an administrator. The topic area of pseudoscience is also under article probation, though the terms are slightly different than those for climate change; it should be listed at WP:GS (let me know ifn not so I can track it down and fix that).

There will always be a tension on these BLPs between a credulous WP:SPS recounting their ideas and a long debunking digression. On the gripping hand, I think the best approach is to focus exclusively on independent reliable coverage - if nobody has commented on an idea except a few bloggers, it should not be mentioned in the article at all. With Behe, the NCSE and similar luminaries have gotten involved, so it is easy to source statements along the lines of irreducible complexity is not taken seriously by the biology community.

As for actual advice, you are already active at the talkpage and BLP/N, which should lead to a nice solid consensus. There is also a WikiProject for Intelligent Design where you could post to attract more interested editors, but as that is a heavily monitored article I doubt that that should be necessary. On a political note, I usually find that whatever Aunt Entropy says is fair and well-considered. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLP recently? In substance and tone I don't see the slightest hint of wiggle room there. Editors can't just reach a consensus to ignore this policy can they? I've detailed the issues I've identified here. Note that these are not POV or even scientific concerns (I am cvertain you and I are in agreement about these things), they are clear violations of WP:BLP, don't you agree? JPatterson (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That is correct: local consensus cannot override policy. If there is a good faith disagreement regarding whether or not a policy is being properly applied, follow the articletalk→noticeboard→RFC branches of the dispute resolution tree. If the disagreement more concerns policy being disregarded, follow the articletalk→usertalk→AN/I branches.
I have a strong opinion about intelligent design. If I were to write the article, it would be highly prone to NPOV and OR violations. I prefer to confine my editing to areas I find less stressful. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW- I didn't get any probation-like warnings or templates or anything when I edited the Behe article so if you think there should be, it might be an issue. JPatterson (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New subject: Is this cool? Also, these ([28] [29]) were not helpful. JPatterson (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The application and meaning of notifications is one of the differences. If I recall the timeline correctly, the pseudoscience probation was enacted not too long after the homeopathy probation. In the latter, members of each "side" of the debate apparently decided that it would be cute to template each other in an attempt to hasten mutual banning. This ended up being disruptive. The pseudoscience probation requires perceived misbehaviour→template placed by WP:UNINVOLVED administrator with specific examples and advice for improvement→misbehaviour→sanction. You are not on notice or anything, that was just a friendly heads up. A few years on, with the climate change probation the community decided to go with the let everyone know that the editing environment here is not the most pleasant that Wikipedia has to offer method. Currently, TS is shouldering the vast majority of that burden. If you or anyone else watching this page are interested in an automated solution, there is some discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log - 2/0 (cont.) 22:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider clarifying and adding detail to your thread at User talk:ScienceApologist in light of the notice at the top of their page. On the bright side, I was previously only aware of definition 3 at wikt:comport - neato. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC breaking his parole

[30] calls an editor malicious.

[31] Calls the same editor malicious again.

[32] Edits my post (i forgot to sign) in contravention of earlier enforcement action. And of course saying he does not care about his current enforcement.

Please give him a topic ban or should i do a request for enforcement? --mark nutley (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be reading a different parole to the one I'm reading. I see no similarity between "malicious" and "septic" (and the wording is warned, not banned). Adding an "unsigned" to (someone's; I didn't know it was yours)? Seems really rather petty, but on an article talk page you could probably argue it was a technical violation. But editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation is the wording - and I don't think that page *is* subject William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And calls an editor an "old fruit" again. *sigh*--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that, just maybe, spamming the same trivia to every admin you happen to have ever met isn't really a good idea? My answer is over here [33] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

? Hadn't seen this thread until already having posted on Prodego's page, who had originally requested to be informed of further incivility on your part. But hey, while I'm around, here are other examples of unconstructive editing on talkpages by WMC from today alone (I didn't go through any Userpage diffs).--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And another: "You snarking above seems all-too-typical of your style." ATren (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggested ATren remove this as not a certain enough violation but this suggests it shows "a clear personal attack"--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow - why don't you-all find something productive to do. This looks like primary school tattle-tale time. The pack is on the scent. Seriously the noticeboard is that-away... Vsmith (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the primary school analogy, but I think you may not realize [Redacted by - 2/0 (cont.) 00:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)]. ATren (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't expect this admin to do anything. He's a true believer in settled science. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with the science, it has to do with incivility, soapboxing and personal attacks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But he runs interference for the True Believers who own the climate change pages. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's true in some sense, though I think it ultimately hurts science rather than helping it. It's sad that the product of almost a century of work on the nature of scientific theory and progress is so ignored by so many scientists in the field.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Settled science" is anti-science. Settled science is religion. It is the polar opposite of scholarship and critical thinking.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

The link you dropped on my tp was directed to the wrong target which led me to believe it was my comment re AGF that you were taking me to task for. See my tp for more. JPatterson (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

diffs

Your criticism lacked focus. Provide appropriate diffs. Nightmote (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that this user recently replaced his talk page with this (which I accidentally reverted) and made edits which suggest he may have decided to leave Wikipedia. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

When I see a line from a news article that is phrased so perfectly and succinctly that I can't figure out how to say it any better, I'll often attribute the information and include it with only a small modification. According to the essay you showed me, it's something I shouldn't do. So, I appreciate you pointing that out to me. One issue associated with that edit is an issue that I've found common with several of the regulars on the AGW articles, and that's that they'll often revert without making any attempt to correct or improve the edits that they disapprove of. The edits in that article, and some edits I did over at Lawrence Solomon, in which a couple of account names you are probably familiar with reverted my edits then later admitted that they could only dispute part of what I had added, is illustrative of what I'm talking about. I don't know if it's a Wikipedia requirement that editors operate in a collaborative and helpful manner, but after experiencing congenial collaboration and cooperation in the MILHIST project, it's disappointing to see that behavior dismissed so out-of-hand on other subjects, most glaringly in many science-related articles. Cla68 (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to generalize the atmosphere on climate-change articles - which are the topic of active political controversy - to "science-related articles" in general. Most, if not the vast majority, are marked by congenial collaboration. If you're curious, your expertise in article-building would probably be most welcome across any number of scientific topics. And if MILHIST has any examples of shepherding effective, congenial collaboration on subjects of active political controversy (2008 South Ossetia War? 2006 Lebanon War?) I'd be happy to look at them for applicable lessons. MastCell ^Talk 05:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are controversial topics within MILHIST, but you don't hear much about them. Why? Because there aren't as many problems with the way that the editors with those articles behave. Check Allied war crimes during World War II or Strategic bombing during World War II. Here's an example I was involved with. Another editor didn't like my edits and put an NPOV tag on it. We voiced our concerns on the talk page, and went on our way. There was no edit war over the NPOV tag as has occurred repeatedly on various Global Warming articles. That's how it works for the most part in MILHIST articles. There are a few exceptions, like Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but even that article has a much more congenial discussion page than most of the global warming article talk pages. The behavior I see in the GW articles, such as editors mass reverting and then being unable to justify the mass revert (see the talk page), yet refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, or continuously directing unfriendly remarks at other editors, I've never encountered before. The only time I've heard of such behavior was on the evidence page for this case. The thing is, most of the MILHIST editors are, IMO, college students and amateur historians (the latter includes me). Many of the GW editors claim to be or really are scholars and scientists, yet their behavior in Wikipedia is absolutely reprehensible and shameful. Why? Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how applicable those examples are - after all, how many blogs and op-ed pages bloviate about the Allied strategic bombing campaign? How many millions of dollars per year do multinational corporations spend to agitate people on one side or other of that debate? How many hundreds of agenda-driven sockpuppets have infested those pages? How many editors of those pages have been singled out for poorly fact-checked demonization in the newspapers? I guess what I'm saying is that the atmosphere on climate-change articles is a bit more intense. The closest thing I've been involved with is the WP:MED effort on topics like autism, where editors deal with a constant tension between active, well-organized political agendas and scientific consensus. MastCell ^Talk 07:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'll pardon my semi-informed thought on the matter, I think the situation is basically one where the anti-science activists and the pro-science activists pursue their interests. Then there are people like MastCell and perhaps like 2over0, who I think simply prefer the devil they know over the devil they don't know. Then there are editors like Cla68 (where I'd also include myself) who think a more professional environment would be better, and would work better as well. I wonder myself if a change in balance wouldn't result in something much worse than the status quo, as I think people have wondered for a long time. Ultimately I put my faith in the marketplace of ideas, and the thought that things will work out if they should work out. Any of us could be wrong, of course. Mackan79 (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

For ArbCom, now - 2/0 (cont.) 04:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet, not half as reprehensible as people who threaten to out other editors simply because they don't give in to your demands in content disputes. And mind you, shortly after you issued your threat, another of your fellow forum participants followed through with your suggestion and actually carryout out your threat. So forgive me if I find your hand-wringing utterly unconvincing. Whether it's a campaign ginned up on the Discovery Institute blogs, or the climate denialist blogs, the anti-science crowd shows up, ready for a fight. And their tone is tolerated, like the repeated personal attacks on WMC, repeating Solomon's laughable claims over and over. Or the false accusation of of "ID cabal" coming out of WR and repeated ad nauseum over here. It's one thing to deal with those who are simply scientifically illiterate. As a science educator, I consider it part of my job to clarify misconceptions. But the persistent harassment, year after year, coming from well-organised off-wiki sources. That's more than a little annoying. And when one of the people who helped drove some of these campaigns comes here and wonders, gosh darn it, why aren't people nicer? Guettarda (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a serious charge, and you need to back it up or withdraw it. Anyway, how do you know who the people are that are coming to edit the articles that you also have an interest in? What does it matter anyway who they are? The editors who come to those articles who you disagree with probably also believe that it is their job to clear up misconceptions, add more information, or try to balance the article out because they think one side isn't being represented. Do you automatically feel that you're right and they're wrong? That's what it looks like from what you're saying. Am I right in concluding that you don't feel that efforts at sincere collaboration, cooperation, and compromise should be attempted with editors you disagree with? Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a serious charge, quite the opposite, but all the same. If Guettarda thinks that his unsupported views of long past events, which have already been evaluated by ArbCom, are somehow a defense of continuing incivility and baseless accusations of dishonesty in the topic area, I think he's mistaken. Perhaps if he continues this should be tested, since Guettarda does indeed seem to be closed off to dialogue of any kind. Mackan79 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the "pro-science editors are being harassed" meme resurfaces, even though it is the pro-science editors who are causing most of the trouble. ATren (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think Guettarda should be admonished for his tone in this discussion.[34] This is pure vitriol from start to finish. The discussion starts with an initial source, stating, "The thieves’ eureka moment came when they found messages from Jones, the unit’s director, and others apparently encouraging climate scientists to refuse freedom of information (FoI) requests from known climate sceptics, and even to destroy data rather than surrender them to anyone they feared might misuse them." Cla68 initially summarized this as "Critics have charged that the emails showed that Jones appeared to direct his team to refuse to provide data for Freedom of information (FOI) requests." Guettarda reverted with the following: "'Apparently encouraging [people]' is clearly not the same as 'direct[ing people]'. In addition, 'direct[ing] his team' implies that he was using his position as unit leader to direct his staff to do wrong. Not supported by the source. Quite a smear to add to a BLP." In simpler terms, the source says Jones "apparently encourag[ed]" not that he "apparently directed." Ok, so Cla68 adjusted it to "appeared to encourage."[35] Now Guettarda says the problem is the reference to "critics," which he calls "horrible form," and a "misrepresentation of the source" since the author discusses "thieves" rather than "critics." Move the goal posts, fine, although this is incorrect; the article directly says the emails "apparently" show this, so if anything Cla68 has only understated the author's claim. Finally Cla68 brings another source, which states, "In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007." Cla68 posts this on the talk page and says, "Ok, I'll make it say exactly what it says here."[36] He changes the text to something nearly identical, with a direct attribution in the text. Now Guettarda responds that Cla68 has gone "from bad to worse," has now comitted a "copyvio," and comments that, "as bad as the last bit, this has me shocked."

Nearly every one of Guettarda's comments in this discussion is needlessly uncivil, while several such as this are direct personal attacks. There is no evidence of any miconduct whatsoever on Cla68's part. There is no excuse for it; this is abusive behavior that has gone on too long. Mackan79 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've requested ArbCom clarification on the outing accusations. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyway, back to the original point, I think that several of the AGW "regulars" have issues with civility, cooperation, and collaboration. I guess the question is what do do about it. Perhaps 2/0 might have some ideas? Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements

New section as requested – a possible way of improving the editing environment would be to encourage newcomers to the topic to follow policies requiring due weight to the scientific majority view, and policies promoting a collegial editing environment, as disussed here. The importance of civility, cooperation, and collaboration is all to easily undermined by civil POV pushing, and while I appreciate the efforts to impose sanctions, there have been evident difficulties with the Requests for enforcement page becoming another venue for such arguments. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea of adding more specifics to the probation page and/or notification template could be a good one. I am not sure if I will have a chance to make a decent proposal this weekend, but do please let me know if you start or find such a discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there really a policy requiring "due weight to the scientific majority view?" The proverbial Flat Earth example comes to mind when I hear that. If a dissenting views are supported by reliable sources, then I don't think there's a problem with them being represented in full. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide who is right, we just report what the sources say. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave (and, to be fair, many of his like-minded editors) seem to wish WP:SPOV was the policy instead of WP:NPOV. Failing that, they have basically made it the de facto policy at GW-related pages. This request to have it codified at the enforcement board doesn't surprise me at all. Scott aka UnitAnode 01:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that an encyclopedia must reflect the mainstream scientific view is not the same as saying, as does SPOV, that science is assumed correct. I reached out to dave because though we have often been on opposite sides, he's shown himself to be flexible and fair. I think the probation experiment has failed. I would like to explore ways to improve the editing environment because I think the current environment is detrimental to the quality of the articles, some of which is due to the factors you mentioned. The basic idea is to replace a sanction regime with a community consensus on the type of editing environment ~~they~~ we desire. I would be most interested in any thoughts you or others have on that subject. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusive and improper enforcements by 2/0 (a.k.a. 2over0)

Hi 2^0. In order to assist me in gathering diffs of your abusive enforcement actions and your disruptive activity in the AGW articles, could you please provide me with a list of enforcement actions you've taken and the relevant editor names? Have you done a single block or ban on any of the disruptive propagandists who are trying to cleanse the encyclopedia of scientific information such as content and links related to episodes of global warming that occured before the 20th century? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is in reply to the request I just left on your talkpage, please see my recent contributions, including the 14 other editors of whom similar requests were made. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw your contributions before I posted this. It doesn't change the fact that your involvement has been grotesquely biased and damaging. It's played a large part in contributing to the frustrating and toxic environment at those articles. As I've noted previously, I have no problem with your weighing in on the discussions. But we don't need admins bullying those they disagree with and taking the side of partisans whose views they share. Could you answer the question? Which editors have you blocked, banned, and carried out other enforcement measures against? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the nonsense you left on my talkpage with an appropriate edit summary. Scott aka UnitAnode 04:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

2/0. I consider your recent activity on my talk page to be disruptive and borderline harrassment. Please refrain from making any further edits on my talk page. If, in the future, you have a geniune concern with one of my edits, which you strongly believe to justifies an actual warning, I request for you to bring it up with any other administrator and let him/her handle it. This is not meant to be "combative", I just want you to stop and we can leave it at that. Thanks. Sirwells (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You might also consider including a note in future correspondence letting editors know who the recipients are and explaining yourself. Given your problematic behavior it's not surprising that editors aren't happy to get notices from you. I had thought you had finally removed yourself from playing a disruptive role in the drama, so it's disappointing to see you're getting involved again in an administrative capacity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You might also consider including a note in future correspondence letting editors know who the recipients are and explaining yourself. - Thank you, I think that that is a very good idea. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a poor idea to let partisan editors bully away admins whose enforcement decisions they dislike. It speaks volumes that you're willing to berate 2/0 here and elsewhere, but unwilling to actually pursue any prescribed form of dispute resolution. You guys fell afoul of this standard a long time ago. I'll let you in on a little secret. The reason your complaints don't get the desired response has nothing to do with "administrative bias". It has to do with the fact that you comport yourselves like vindictive 8-year-olds compelled to get the last word (which is usually "he hit me first!"). That makes it hard to take your complaints seriously even when they contain objective merit. MastCell ^Talk 06:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You might be surprised to know that I actually agree with the "anti-AGW" editors on only perhaps two things: 1) the suite of GW-related articles lacks balance; and 2) the "enforcement" page is a one-sided joke. Otherwise, I'm very much more on the "side" of the "pro-AGW" editors with regards to the underlying facts of whether or not global warming is happening, and man's involvement with causing it. While the whole Climategate thing raises serious questions as to methods, I don't agree that it invalidates the research that has been done. I've been painted as some kind of ant-AGW POV guy, not by my content edits, but by the fact that I've argued for more balance in the articles, and at the enforcement page, and have done so quite vigorously. Scott aka UnitAnode 14:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As for me, (if anyone cares), I am a solid skeptic. That does not mean I think global warming is total rubbish. It means I am skeptical of the science behind it, that I believe politics has very likely caused the issue to become exaggerated. And I think the drastic measures that the main players are proposing are unnecessary. I also believe skepticism is a healthy attitude to have with any science. Other than that, I'm with Anode's comments above and I suspect that my skeptism has caused 2/0 to be heavy-handed with my edits. (whether he realizes it or not.) Sirwells (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to associate myself with UnitAnode's remarks (although I think the uncertainty re sensitivity needs to be reduced before we burden the world-economy with mitigation). From my standpoint, the biggest problem in these controversial topic areas is not POV pushing, it's crappy unencyclopedic writing. Unfortunately, any effort to improve the quality of an article is met with bad-faith accusations of being "one of those". Somehow we need to reduce the drama and start building some trust. I see more and more calls for an "off with their heads" approach. I think another tack would be more beneficial - more but shorter duration blocks. A 24 or 48 hr block will send the message while causing much less consternation. No one's going to get their undies too bunched up over having to sit out for a day or two. It would also give admins a chance to send a message to new editors while giving them the opportunity to prove they get it. Just my two centavos. JPatterson (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You all get one and only one clue, and this is it: WP:RFC/U. --TS 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Overly broad. Not everyone who has commented in this section agrees with CoM's initial characterization (e.g. me). 2/0 is between a rock and a hard place. He's made some decisions I would not have but hindsight is 20/20. I wouldn't want his job, that's for certain. JPatterson (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I like 2over0. But I'm disappointed in the role he's played in contributing to the frustrations and ill will in the AGW related articles. It seems clear that he wants to play enforcer against editors whose views he considers fringe. But what's fringey is some of our article content that is so ridiculously slanted. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"? Really? I mean seriously? Come on! That's a joke of a title. And we have an article on Global warming that doesn't provide any background on what global warming is or why it occurs, what the long term record shows, at what rates it's occured in the past, or why this episode is considered different. How can you have an article on the subject of global warming without addressing those issues? It's an out of context argument, not an encyclopedic article. At the very least it should be disambiguated.

As far as these litmus tests evaluating who believes what, I think they are nonsense. Intelligent people choose among the evidence, arguments and ideas, and want to see them reflected as accurately and appropriately as possible. Is all the global warming advocacy good? Is all the opposition on a firm foundation? Of course not. That's why we need to represent the science, the issues, the background, and the controversies. That's what the core Neutral Point of View policy is all about, not choosing winners and losers in political disputes. I would call it a scientific dispute, but the science is getting short shrift as far as coverage here and there just isn't much of it in the articles. It's mostly spin and point scoring, which is a pity and damaging the purpose and mission of an encyclopedia. It also undermines the cause of educating people and addressing environmental degradation. That requires accurate coverage of the best information and ideas so we can all figure out how best to help preserve a healthy and habitable planet. Cheerios! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback Nsaa

{{talkback|nsaa|Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement}}

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Some advice please

Hi, i moved a wip into main space [37] However if i delete it from my sandbox the mainspace page also gets removed? How can i clear my sandbox and not delete the article? mark nutley (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Sandbox page is now just a redirect, and all of the history is at Criticism of the IPCC. I can delete the redirect if you would like, or you can put {{db-author}} at the top, or you can just overwrite the current text (the link above takes you to your userspace instead of the article). None of these will affect the article, and the attribution for licensing remains intact. Thank you for considering these issues, but this is one of the instances where the software actually works pretty well now to make things easy on us editors. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you do it for me? I have no idea were to put the db author thing :) thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, happy to help. The template just goes anywhere on the page to be deleted - it puts the page in a speedy deletion category monitored by admins, and tagged pages usually get deleted in no more than a day or three. I also deleted the talkpage - just let me know if you want to save any of the references stored there, or even just take a look.

If you want to create another page at User:Marknutley/Sandbox, the software will tell you that you are recreating a deleted page, but you should not worry about that. By the way - what means "wip"? Work In Progress? - 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I`ll give it a try on my next article attempt :) yes wip is work in progress :) mark nutley (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash

You recently blocked the above for edit waring over the use of BI. More or less immediately on his return he has started again against a clear talk page consensus on a minor article Five Peaks Challenge. There has been a 1RR enforcement in place on the use of the BI term which also applies. He appears to be a largely single purpose account. Any chance you could have a look? --Snowded ^TALK 22:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the 1RR restriction applies only to the British Isles article itself, but I have requested community input at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Mister Flash regarding edits related to the British Isles. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that it applied to any edit waring over the term on any article but good to get community feedback/agreement to a way forward. Thanks for doing that. --Snowded ^TALK 20:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added my comments to the incidents noticeboard. Thanks, Mister Flash (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

American Dream

i have a question about somone removing my addition to american dream,i recently added a referance to a book by john steinbeck about it being one of the key themes of his book and showing the futility of it, somone keeps removing it at first with no reason, then saying that i have no source, where i have several, and now saying that it is vandalism. Now i believe that putting a referance to this book can be useful to many people who are researching american dream and possible literature that could be of use. Is this either vandalism on my part, or the user that is constantly deleting my post. Thanks in advance. (86.180.90.107 (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

This is your paragraph. What references do you see here?

"The American Dream is also a main theme in the book by John Steinbeck, "Of Mice and Men". The two friends George and Lennie dream of their own piece of land with a ranch, so they can "live offa the fatta the lan'" and just enjoy a better life. But the symbolism shows this is futile due to the fact that it will never happen, and that they end up shooting lenny in the back of the head, like candys' dog. This shows that not everyone can achive the american dream, thus proving by contradiction it is not possible."

Not only does this paragraph contain no references to scholarly thought regarding its application to the American Dream, it contains grammar, spelling and punctuation problems. I see no reason to keep it in the article as it does nothing to help our readers understand the concept. Of course, there are scholarly opinions about how Of Mice and Men applies to the American Dream—the article would benefit from using some of these or these. No original research, please. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

would the use of a referance to many essays that have been written about this subject prove to you that it has a legitimate reason to be added there? Also by the term reference, i ment to one of the key themes of the book, not to a source if you miss understood what i said i am sorry. Also to the fact of no research i would like you to have a look at this clearly stating from a reliable source, the gardian newspaper, that the book has the theme of the faliure of the american dream

Er, it has been about eleven years since I read Of Mice and Men, and I have never edited that article. I have requested a third opinion on this matter. In the meantime, please discuss this at Talk:American Dream. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback nsaa notforum

{{talkback|nsaa|wp:notforum}} Nsaa (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate ban

I'm outta the dog now, right? JPatterson (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Kidney-powered dog light? But yes, your articleban has lapsed and you are free to edit any page. Good luck :). - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Har. Quick-mind, slow-fingers syndrome. Thanks for the 'toon, it's going up on my wall. Motor easy, I'll try and steer clear of the landmines. JPatterson (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

suggested sanctions re: Mister Flash

Hi 2over0, there has been discussion at the ani thread you opened and I (after reviewing evidence and case histories) have suggested some sanctions. Just thought you'd like to know--Cailil ^talk 10:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for delving into that history - it is not pretty. I commented on the proposed sanctions, but not on all the noise in that thread. Do you have any ideas on how to prevent discussions from diverging into pointless bickering from the usual suspects without stifling productive discussion? - 2/0 (cont.) 10:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Am i edit warring?

[38] I do not think i am, could you let me know if i am breaching my parole and if so i`ll self revert. thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please self-revert. More extensive reply at User talk:Marknutley#Editwarring. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, however were did you get this from? and your only contribution was a quarter hour after your revert

[39] Thats like 3 days of talk? mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant during the period leading up to your revert, linked earlier in the same sentence. Rereading, I can see the ambiguity, I hope my clarification clears things up. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter L Corsell page has been deleted unnecessarily

Hello 2over0, I am Eve Higgs, the employee in charge of our (GridPoint) Website, www.gridpoint.com. I created a page for our CEO and his various activities to benefit the future of clean energy. I was instructed to utilize his bio *as seen on our Website,* but with a few edits. There is no copyright infringement; your notice states that the copyright infringement is for our Management page. But that's the point: it's OUR management page, and I was instructed to use the bio as it appears on the site. Please advise on what other proof you need in order to replace the page ASAP. Thank you. One other question: is it not policy to email the author before deleting a page? Please reply to my email address below. Thank you, Ehiggs (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Email redacted. I am looking into this, thank you. In general, every page on Wikipedia needs to be licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). That website asserts copyright 2009 by GridPoint, Inc; if the text can be released under a compatible license, then I would be happy to restore the page. Mr. Corsell appears to have been written about by independent parties, probably in enough detail to satisfy the notability requirement. An alternative solution would be to write a new article based on those sources instead of the Management page.

The Deletion policy does not require contacting the author, though this is usually done as a courtesy in cases as this one where all or most of the text is attributable to a single author. If we can get the issue of licensing squared away, Peter L. Corsell, like all encyclopedia pages here, will be freely editable by anyone with an internet connection, and will likely gradually diverge from the version on your website. There is more information at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials; please note especially that the site license includes the ability for third parties to use material here for commercial purposes provided authorship credit is provided. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PA?

I draw your attention to [40]. Is this considered acceptable? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not acceptable - Vsmith has warned them now. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just added clarification there with a new toy I picked up from your recent 3rr action. Didn't know Template:Inappropriate comment existed before, learn something new every day :) thanks. Vsmith (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that you can copy and paste from underneath it? That is a sufficiently cool little piece of code that I wonder if it raises accessibility issues. I have not decided yet if I actually like use of the template or not. It is far more obtrusive than anything else we use, but it avoids the editing another's comments problem. Ah well, if people do not like their comments being covered, they can stop making personal attacks or demonstrate that the placer is being disruptive. In neither case is it likely to be an isolated issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both; cute toy you have there William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not requesting or expecting action on this, but: User_talk:Hipocrite#Remove_section.3F. Perhaps you could collapse the section in question seeing as how it isn't going to be removed. I'm not sure how.-Heyitspeter (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed. Scott aka UnitAnode 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Thank you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR close

I wondered how to phrase that result, but your block of the submitter captured the issue well. Now I guess you will be raked over the coals by the blockee (complete with legal jargon) and threatened with Arbcom, but c'est la vie. I think he actually does make a contribution here, but sometimes the specific behavior can be very annoying. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I really hate cases involving the valuable content / uncivil or anti-collaborative interactions quadrant of editor. There is real damage to the project during such blocks, but if we get it right the damage is less than just letting them continue through warning after warning. Ah, well. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:THF

Hi 2over0, I noticed you blocked User:THF for a significant period, but I can't quite make out why he was blocked. He appears to have been in a conflict with a couple of other editors, but I'm not really seeing any blockable offenses; certainly nothing worse than what his opponents did/wrote. One of them appears to have actually violated 3RR, but not been blocked. I think it would be best to unblock THF at this point, but I wanted to raise the issue with you first. Cheers! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. His opponents have engaged in edit warring, uncivil language, and assuming bad faith, yet the only action taken against them was that one of them (a long-time user) was warned for violating 3RR.--Drrll (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Like Drrll, I am an involved party, but I thought I should register my objection to unblocking. The conflicts haven't been pretty, and there's plenty of blame to go around, but in the end the conflicts begin with THF's inability to play well with others. Whatever mistakes any other parties may have made do not excuse THF's constant torrent of accusations, often in the midst of what should be the most simple and clear cut discussions. For those who think he should be unblocked, I have two questions. 1) Why do you feel THF's behavior is appropriate for a Wikipedia editor? 2) What would you do or have us do to to prevent conflict with such a hostile editor? Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you think that the encyclopedia would be better served by unblocking THF I would not stand in the way. They are definitely a positive force for content, but based on reviewing their last few days of contributions there are significant issues with civil interaction and collaboration. Ratel violated 3RR, but claimed the BLP exemption. On reviewing the edits I do not think they qualify, but assuming good faith, I warned them in this regard. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

2/0, can you please provide links to the gross incivility you cited in the edit comment? ATren (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I second this request. You blocked a user who reported edit warring but didn't block the user who was actually reported, despite the fact that they had already been warned and you yourself say their defensive stance isn't valid. I don't understand why something as serious as a block was performed in such a manner. There were two sides to this edit war, yet you blocked just one. Swarm^(Talk) 23:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

2over0, based on the comments above, and your statement that you would not object to THF being unblocked, I'm going to unblock him. Thanks for responding! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me - thank you for the backup review. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For my own reference, can you identify the tendentious edits you think I made? It's certainly never my intent to be tendentious. I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#A_request_for_consistent_application_of_NPOV_and_BLP. THF (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

THF - good to see you around. My biggest concern with that flare-up was the accusations of bad faith; when that breaks down, it becomes much more difficult to return to collegial editing.

Scanning the above link (I am a bit busy off-site for the next little while), I really like your thoughts. Have you considered soliciting input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

PA ??

Would you mind taking a look at these [41], [42] ... they seem to focused on editors and less on sources or content. Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at your last few contribs shows that you are engaging in the exact behavior for which you think William should be sanctioned ([43]). Given that context, I'm curious how you would you address this situation, if you were an uninvolved admin. MastCell ^Talk 06:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask folks to stay focused on sources and content to be objective. Then remove the bad apple, obstructing with original research. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Then remove the bad apple - I thought you were wanting to focus on content, not editors? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, apple pruning is required when content progression suffers, and in particular when editors show little self awareness for reformation or restoration to civil principles. I'll say here I've notice a little change for the better (except diffs above), however looking for consistency. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For all this talk of apples, "content progression" seems to refer to ZP5's rather tendentious determination to use Christopher Booker as a source,[44] despite undisputed evidence that Booker lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.[45] My understanding is that we must not give undue weight to fringe views on the IPCC article, or indeed the "hockey stick" article, and we would need reliable third party sources showing that these views are significant in relation to the article subject before giving them any mention. A lot of editing time could be saved if that principle was accepted. . . dave souza, talk 00:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered (or maybe I didn't phrase it clearly). "Ask folks to stay focused on sources and content to be objective": yes, that has been done, more than once. "Remove the bad apple": I'm going to wager that all admins believe, when they place sanctions, that they are removing bad apples. You and others generally haven't been too happy because you disagree about who the bad apples are.
I'm asking specifically how you would deal with a situation like this. You've "reported" William for violating a standard that you don't seem to hold yourself to. Are you saying that the behavior is acceptable in your case, but unacceptable in William's, because he is an obstructive "bad apple" and you are not? I don't want to put words in your mouth, nor to pick on you in particular, but this is a recurring theme in this dispute and I would like to understand the thought process. MastCell ^Talk 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the standard WP:NPA. It clearly says "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." Now answer me with how you would count "repeated". Would you have a lower standard (count) apply to me and a higher standard (count) to editor under complaint? Remind you the editor has been confirmed for PA and is under probation, with a previous block for this disruptive behavior. This section is about that editor, not me, I was the victim here. If you wish to complain about me, you have other forums available. So to answer your question, deal with me somewhere else, on me. Deal with the complained editor here. That's called fairness. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. All editors are required to act properly, not just those being complained or campaigned against. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Try Victim_blaming is has better source support (which I've seen you mention somewhere else). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to "complain" about you. I want to understand your thought process when you complain about William doing something that you, yourself, seem to have no problem doing. I want to understand why you expect to be treated more respectfully than you're willing to treat others (and not only you, but large numbers of editors involved in this conflict). Let's leave aside the lectures on fairness and victimhood. If I parse your comment above correctly, you believe that it's an issue of quantity: you have committed a relatively low, acceptable number of violations while William has crossed a line by committing a larger number of violations? MastCell ^Talk 21:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good, this is about WMC here. Why after complaining here [46] above, the editor has "no problems" to go onto to others and then do likewise multiple times (see original diffs, could it be pride?). Yes, quantity is measurable quality. My thought process is, the editor is confirmed for past PA on me and others. The editor's PA continues despite block and sanctions. There has been little effort to restore civility by the editor. Deeper thinking now ... the editor may be a indignant reverter, requiring a ZERO revert sanction, to prevent inciting disruptions. (As for my diff, take it to my talk page and tell me who I harmed so I may differentiate myself by seeking restoration. Karmic causes and effects are everywhere and must be purified.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)