User talk:Lar/Archive 65

Following up on concerns about User:Ash's use of citations
Please see this draft RFC/U. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been dealt with at ANI, but since it wasn't I'm following up with an RFC/U as suggested. I have told Ash of my intention to file this, for what it's worth. Let me know if you have any comments or additions (feel free to just make changes). I'll submit it in the next day or so, depending on the feedback I receive. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The link Dc has provided you where he states he "told Ash of his intention to file" this is incorrect. Ash has not been properly advised of Dc's intent.  207.237.230.164 (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, how helpful of you to turn up to point this out! What matters most is the notification itself, not who does it, so why don't you be even more helpful and go notify Ash yourself, whoever you are? ++Lar: t/c 01:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * . 207.237.230.164 (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Point stands nevertheless. Whoever you are. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the RfC and so it was not my responsibility to notify the subject...who, BTW, has been notified properly now. PS- Have you read WP:WAE?  "While having a username has a lot of benefits, editing already existing pages without one is perfectly acceptable, and in fact, is very much welcome." 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We welcome editing by IPs. IF they don't have an account. If they do, then they ought to use their account so we have proper context. If you have an issue with how DC set up the RfC why bring it to me? I find your contributions here on my page less than helpful, and not particularly welcome either, although I have an open door policy under which I don't remove comments merely because I find them unhelpful. Your edits show essentially no article space editing, which is what that IP policy is intended to foster. If you want to participate in WikiPolitics (which appears to be the sole area of interest) and you want my respect or acknowledgement, be a mensch, don't use an IP to hide. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I doubt this will come as much of a surprise... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My recent actions and comments regarding WMC
You might have wondered about my motivation for acting in the manner I am, so I am laying my cards on the table. I intend to be considered by the majority of reviewers as someone acting firmly but, within a reasonable definition, fairly in respect of WMC. Once this reputation is firmly established among all but a few editors, all of whom are noted to usually speak and act in accordance to WMC's own inclinations re CC, I can then abuse my flags to remove WMC (a very well informed contributor to the subject of AGW) from the subject area for a minor infraction (or simply make one up) and then suggest that the reaction is typical of that on the previous many instances where I have acted appropriately. It is important that my recent efforts appear both to be fair, and habitually decried as nonconstructive or biased by certain inclined parties for this to work.

WMC has been reacting appropriately, and I must say I am disappointed that you seem to have missed this strategy. Perhaps I should have emailed you before setting out on this strategy. Nevermind - I suppose I can trust you to keep this to yourself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed I did miss that missive. Not to worry, though, No one will know. Tis a cunning plot. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How will anybody find this out? LHVU has hacked all DNS servers to point to a copy of Wikipedia. Only you can see this text! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is LHVU holidaying in the East? ++Lar: t/c 03:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you! Nobody can see this but us! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please semi-prot Hank Johnson?


A lot of blogs are talking about a really stupid comment he made regarding Guam, and while there is video it is possible this is simply a well-executed April Fool's joke. I've explained in more detail on the talk page there. Cheers, TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What specific edits are vandalistic? Please provide diffs. I'm not going to get involved in a content related matter regarding this article. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh it has already been semi-protected (one of the reasons I asked here was because I knew it was watched so much). The main problem is that a lot of the edits about this (well worth the watch if you haven't seen it) were being sourced to blogs. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Community sanctions
You're correct in that its my first visit to this sanctions page; I've been active with a few others, IIRC all were ArbCom sanctions, except for the Sarah Palin probation. There seems to be a new level of failing to AGF that admins in these areas are doing their best for Wikipedia, and their utmost to examine evidence given and behavior of involved parties and be fair to all concerned. I also contributed to an instance on Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (#Gatoclass) and the editor who filed first demanded I produce difs to support my view; when I replied my view was based on examining the difs and contribs in the case, s/he implied directly that I had not "actually look[ed] into [his/her] contributions" and demanded I "provid[e] differences to support the verdict" - and I saw similar complaints on MastCell's talk page, where demands were made of him that he "produce difs" to support his view. This is backwards-think; its not up to the 'judge', so to speak, to provide the evidence, but to examine and weigh it. When did this start, and have you any thoughts on how to educate and counter this trend? Or am I overly concerned with a couple of new editors who don't understand the process, and seeing a trend where there is none?

Btw, I do appreciate the welcome to the community sanctions, and will continue to try to help there when I can. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think providing diffs is a good practice, to be encouraged, but I agree with you that it's not up to the admin being asked to act, it's up to the request initiator. ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You do realize that's not what I was asking about, right? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 11:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you were asking if this practice, which we both agree is bad, is an aberration or a new trend, and if the latter, how to counteract it. I'm not sure when it started exactly but I don't think it's been around all that long. I hope it's an aberration, but sometimes aberrations become accepted practice if not nipped. I'm not quite sure how to counteract it other than by saying "no, that's not how things are done". ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, yes. I had hoped you'd have a brighter idea than mine, but at least we agree on the one approach. :-/ KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible?
To indefinitely semi-protect naked short selling? It is clear as day that the IP's, likely from free hotspots he found somewhere, are the topic banned user known as "Mantamoreland." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you asked at WP:RFPP ? You also might consider filing an WP:SPI to have a CU look into the matter. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't heard of RFPP before, but I don't think the issue is one of sockpuppets so much (it may be I haven't looked too much into the history), but rather he is using IPs for a few edits that are pointless (and probably harmful) to ban. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll want to take this to the ArbCom enforcement board maybe? I'm reducing my current involvement to a few limited areas. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll look into that, thanks. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods
Hi '! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention. There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, but with SlimVirgin, Crum375 AND Jayjg involved... I think I'll pass for now. I've got enough stress in my life as it is. ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Assumes facts not in evidence
This is a statement that you shouldn't be using - especially not with comments like the following diffs, note that it is pure coincidence that this is mostly from a WMC case - i took comments from your contribution list one by one: While people can hold (and do) many different opinions about the validity or the veracity of the above comments [which i'm not in any way going to discuss, or be interested in discussing] - they all fall into the "assumes facts not in evidence" category. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (no evidence of poisoning environment)
 * (no evidence of "hindering that process more than helping it")
 * (no evidence of any group thinking anything)
 * (no evindence given for baiting at all, or even statements about what Mark was (attempted?) to be baited into)
 * Suffice it to say for now I disagree. More later. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought I'm not sure it's a good use of my time to rebut someone that apparently doesn't admit they are wrong. Why bother? The science club will deny there is a problem, regardless of what you do or say, apparently. And that's a big part of the problem, how they close ranks and defend at all costs. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Throwing accusations of bad faith on top. Is not really helping is it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Semi
Hello Lar, I was wondering if you might be interested in redeploying your Liberal Semi criteria as an addition to the Protection Policy? The process you used may be inactive, but I think the idea of it is logically sound. Since it seems we're never getting flaggedrevs, it might be a worthwhile stopgap measure. The Wordsmith Communicate 13:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? I'd love to see the criteria we were using at LS added to the protection policy but I wasn't sure that was workable... it was enough that they were within discretion. I'm game though. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought it was workable either, and before now it probably wasn't. In fact, not too long ago, I hated the liberal semi idea. However, with mounting frustration over us not having FP/PR, as well as the remnants of the BLP movement's momentum, I think we would probably have a reasonable shot. I'll look into drafting a proposal to make it happen. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback?
Hi mate, i have been doing some recent change patrol and came across a tool called huggle whic hmakes life easier. But it says i need something called rollback? What is that and am i allowed to have it? mark nutley (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:Rollback for more information. Typically rollback is granted to non admin users who have a good history of sound edits and of not edit warring, because it is a tool that can be misused to make edit warring easier. There is a page to apply, or you can ask an admin directly, as you apparently are doing here. (see Rollback for more specifics) Based on your prior history I'm not sure I'd grant rollback to you at this time, I'm afraid. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worrys mate, i did find that request page and did request :-) i suspect they will also say no lol, a well i`ll have to continue to do it the old fashioned way, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Macai; discussion before CC topic bans?
You are absolutely correct at the WP:GS/CC/RE page that I was remiss in not ensuring that my explanation was posted. It might be buried in the sections above, but I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement regarding whether we should encourage or require that lengthy sanctions be discussed at that page. Personally I could go either way so long as we are clear about it, but I would really like to hear what others have to say. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should opine again. I feel rather the only enforcement admin there, beleaguered by a bunch of non admins and admins who don't enforce, at least not at that page. ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I read through that discussion this afternoon it seemed to have turned into precisely my least favorite type of conversation, full of posturing, hard lines, and people talking past each other (not to mention the classic signal/noise problem). I will go see if I can refocus a bit on the issue of long term sanctions being placed before the moot before or after being enacted, but it is late here and my brain might abandon me before I can write something cogent. I think I can definitely see the logic at least to calling in a sanity check in cases where time is not of the essence, or even encouraging discussion if that will make the probation run more smoothly. On an unrelated note, I think that that section title might be evidence that I need to hang around with more native English speakers. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty apt summary. Which is why I think hearing from more admins that actually work there might be good. As for the subject line, I was tempted to change the word order but I figured it would break a fair number of links. Maybe I should anyway. For the record, I was not aware you were not a native English speaker, your phrasing and word choice surely don't give such away. ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change it - anchor will even preserve section links (though I suspect setting the HTML id= directly might be kinder on the servers). I made a stab at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement; maybe we can close down that thread soon.
 * And thank you, but I actually am a native English speaker :). I work in physics, though, and spend a fair bit of time in the minority in that regard. This leads me to pick up somewhat idiosyncratic speech patterns sometimes, such as a tendency to arrange word order by importance instead of grammar or asking "what means foo". - 2/0 (cont.) 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If I am any judge of character, you are far too smart to make a POINT of this first point ... How can we de-escalate this? I really do not see the point to most of the verbiage over at that talk page over the last few days, and it is starting to generate bad blood. I am reticent, though, to attempt to close down discussion among long term reasonable editors - do you have any advice? Would an appeal to reason actually do any good in a thread like that, or should I just let it burn itself out and take to heart smidgens of solid advice concealed in the drama? - 2/0 (cont.) 23:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not making a point. I think talking first works better. But I am very willing to try not talking first and seeing how well it works. That's not making a point, that's experimenting. Because maybe I'm wrong! Who knows. Those accusing me of WP:POINT seem to be... well... not very collegial. You'd think they had already prejudged that it wasn't going to work. ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My point precisely :). But seriously - if that discussion were on an article talk page I would already have requested people to take their drama-llama elsewhere. I am not posting here in some back-handed attempt to make it out that you are the problem or the instigator or anything like that. It simply pains me to see that level of unlevelheadedness on a discussion page devoted to calming troubled waters (yes, this is part of why I mostly avoid ArbCom); you are quite generally thoughtful and clueful, and I genuinely do not know what I can do to nudge that page back towards collegial collaboration mode. Ah well, I am out for the night now anyway - good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well another approach might be to not even announce, just start blocking people that are bringing more heat than light to the enforcement page and see what happens. It's tempting. But no. Have fun. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is getting through to you
There is absolutely no way in which an action by an administrator can be limited by the prior existence of the probation. If you want a talking shop, that's fine, but the talking shop cannot pre-empt the power of an administrator to take action on the basis of the probation. Subsequent discussion of the action is appropriate, but obviously you wouldn't want to stop administrators taking what they regard as appropriate action, as 2over0 believes he did.

I thought at first that you were being ambivalent about this, then I thought you had definitively affirmed the probation, and then I found that you had apparently said it was subject to evolution on the page (which would be okay, though it would have been nice to know in advance that what we were agreeing to was in fact, the reverse of what we thought we were agreeing to--to wit, a reduction in administrative discretion under the guise of an express enhancement of administrative discretion).

I think you're bobbing around and looking for tactical advantage on this one. I have the tactical advantage that I'm not. This won't work. It's too ridiculously bureaucratic. --TS 22:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree and I'm not sure where to even start but here goes. The status quo at a page is what is done at that page. You can't deny that the way the page operates is that we mostly talk first. The log of enforcement actions proves it. Maybe you think it's wrong. Maybe it is against how other pages do it. But it's how it's done on that page. And it works well enough that I'm not going to push for change in the status quo. You can if you want. You'll need to seek consensus for it though. (subject of course that local consensus doesn't override global once you get the global consensus). Maybe I'm dense. Maybe you and KC are, dunno. Maybe we're actually agreeing and don't know it. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

220 questions, 221 questions, whatever it takes
You're talking at cross purposes here. Let me try a new approach - bear with me, I think this is worth trying, if you'll be patient and go with me for a bit:KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, as long as you answer my questions too. Minus snark. I don't like being condescended to. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Try this first. I'm thinking we need to start with Shared Ground first. Tiny increments. If it doesn't work, then I'll try your attempt. Fair enough? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. One question for one question, or I don't want to play your game. I've answered one, it's your turn. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My god, what are you, five? No, I was going to try to start with common ground and lead up to the point where views diverged, as it seems obvious to me you simply do not understand what TS and I are saying, since your arguments simply do not apply. But this bullshit of "I won't take your help unless you jump through my hoops" is just too juvenile and silly to even contemplate. I tried; you wanted to play games. I'm done. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So I won't play on your terms? Sorry, but that is how it is. This is not a matter of my needing your "help" with anything, it's a matter of you being confused and intransigent, and apparently having too much invested in being right. Whatever. It seems to be a defining characteristic of your interaction with me, that you are always trying to lecture me about something, from a position of perceived moral superiority, rather than treating me as an equal. Very immature of you.  You don't get to come in and dictate terms of how to discuss things and your continuing condescension is noted. Go try to talk down to someone else, it won't wash with me. Come back when you're ready to collegially and civilly discuss matters rather than lecture. Or don't come back at all. Because your unwillingness to answer reasonable questions proves that you're not interested in discussion. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about my intent, my feelings, and my opinions. You are also quite wrong about my confusion; I am not confused. You are in error about my "playing" - I was in all sincerity attempting to help resolve what seems to be a complete failure to communicate. I was not in any way, ever, "talking down" to you nor "playing games". You want to stay utterly wrong and clueless about what TS and I were talking ab out; your choice. I tried. Let me know if you prefer not to remain ignorant by choice and will try to explain again. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I calls them as I see them. I see someone quite stubborn and someone not really interested in discussion, just lecturing. Maybe that's not you, but it's the perception I get. I look back at the witch hunt thing a few months back... same thing. You hector but you don't listen. Maybe that's not you, but it's the perception I get. ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are misinterpreting my passionate desire to be clear, which leads to verbosity and sometimes very detailed explanations, as being lecturing or condescending.
 * And now I *am* confused: what are you talking about, "witch hunts"? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 06:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here you go: User_talk:Lar/Archive_59 You were wrong then, and no amount of explanation would get you (or Durova) to stop hectoring me. So why bother? ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You must be joking. I cannot believe you are actually linking to the one place where Durova and I agreed in the last three years; namely, where your extreme ignorance and belligerent and bellicose arguing against every historian ever, that somehow you didn't say what you said. That's something I'd think you'd be embarrassed to link to, Lar, not use as some kind of "proof" of anything. Although now that you've reminded me of it, I now do recall that you get so bullheaded that no one can talk to you, and claearly this is one of those times. I am now done with this. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You were wrong then, and no amount of explanation would get you (or Durova) to stop hectoring me. Sorry if you're too bullheaded to see it. As for being "too embarrassed" to link to it. I'm not. But you should be. Not your finest hour. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

KC's questions

 * Lar, do you agree that Admins can block? (KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC) )
 * Yes. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that Admins can block without discussion (although they should probably discuss if a block is likely to be controversial)?

Lar's questions

 * KC, do you agree that the page, as it is now, and as it has been for at least the last three months, is "mostly" talk first and block later? ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from Bozmo: as for me I agree but think this is unquestionable a bad thing. Another comment from BozMo: you have said (fairly reasonably) that you will block WMC if he say septic again. So you do accept a certain level of appropriateness in admins making blocks relative to climate change without talking it to death. So what is TS complaining about I missed the first diff? --BozMo talk 07:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please repeat that at the talk page because it's an important perspective. As for the septic thing, I'm trying it on for size, to see how it would be not to do things the way we have been. So far it's going rather poorly, I think. But perhaps my mistake was in even announcing intentions. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What is WMC afraid of?
See, for example this removal. Charming. ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should he be "afraid" - as opposed to simply not wanting your input? Methinks you are getting a bit too personal on this issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those who sweep away some, but not all, discussion on a topic usually are afraid of something. It's much more convenient when everyone's singing from the same songsheet. Methinks you are getting a bit too personal on this issue. Have been for a while, actually. ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The keyword in your sentence is "usually", the contradiction is your inference is certainty. Or in more plain words: Jumping to conclusions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The small fraction remaining is usually (there's that word again) explained by bad manners. As for the fraction of the fraction, dunno. Obstinacy? ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems you've reflected poorly on yourself. Or at least that's what I heard he said she said. lol. Mackan79 (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's pretty typical of his behavior (I've experienced the same thing and watched it occur to others). Luckily for us all wikipedia welcomes everyone people to work in this lovely collaborative environment. FYI Lar I'm thinking of filing a request for enforcement against you but I'm not sure if it would violate my probation sanctions. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? Typical of the behavior of which person? As for opening an enforcement request, if you feel you should, you should. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Typical of WMC's behavior. I was sort of joking about filing a RfE against you though (I expect one will be filed against you soon though by others). In reality I've been playing with the thought of challenging 2over0's topic ban since he didn't go through the proper channels and his evidence was rather weak and/or misrepresented (e.g. the first sentence of this response would've been used as evidence for a topic ban if I'd made it at the time), but I'm not sure if I should waste my time with the effort (I'm not getting paid for this crap!). TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We were having a quiet chat on my talk page. You weren't welcome to butt in. Meanwhile, there are unanswered questions for you on the sanctions talk page: you still haven't backed up your undue weight assertions William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Noted. On the other hand all are welcome here and I have nothing to hide. I never remove comments individually, I have better manners than that. You, on the other hand?... actions speak louder than words. But your words speak pretty loudly.
 * 2)Sure I have. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but that's OK. Apparently nothing is ever to your satisfaction if it goes against what you yourself think, but if it agrees, almost anything is. That may be a false impression but that's the impression I get in looking over your interactions. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs are needed not vagueness William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In your view. I feel I've supplied enough information in this particular case, although I do agree that in many cases, diffs are what is needed. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I too share your high ideals. I have never removed a comment on my own talkpage. Somtimes others have done so and I have not undone their revisions. However, I am getting increasingly alarmed by your highly personal commentary. I respect you but every time I see your edits in this area I get more worried that you are way too involved on a personal level. This is so very unhealthy that I am getting more and more inclined to take this further. I saw your crazy oppose on a recent RfA and I defended you from the backlash by immediately voting for you on the meta. However almost every comment I have seen from you in the climate change area of wikipedia has led me to reconsider my initial assessment of you as an editor. In my opinion your neutrality is completely blown. I do not wish to waste my time proving this and request you withdraw from the area. I am fairly sure you will ignore this request but that does not affect the fact that your credibility in the climate change area of wikipedia in my opinion is zero. Polargeo (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship?
Do you want to adopt mbz1? That might be one way of moving forwards, but be prepared to have people running to you fairly often. Unomi (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mbz1 is already sort of a mentoree as Mbz1 comes to me from time to time with questions and concerns and requests for advice. So yes, I could. If that's a way forward. My track record with mentors is poor though. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Lar. The 48 hours block for for that edit  that was made at AE appeal request simply to clarify some Wikipedia policy. There was not a single word said about conflict no matter how broadly constructed my ban was. I discussed Wikipedia policy only. If 48 hours block for that edit was justified, then I am really not sure what my ban is about, but I know I am getting very desperate, and thank you for your help. I assure you, if you are my mentor, and my ban is lifted you will not hear any complain about me.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was just a thought, personally I think it is best if mbz1 simply stays away from I/P for awhile, I don't think anyone is worse off from it. The 48h block was for jumping unsolicited into an ARBPIA AE request right after being banned from I/P broadly construed, I think the block was justified and entirely avoidable if she had simply modified her watchlist or exercised some self-restraint. Sandstein has been getting a lot of flack from both sides so I think it is a good idea if more admins get involved in policing, as it were. Unomi (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That does seem to be how it is likely to come out, yes. My offer stands if things turn out differently. Thanks for suggesting it, regardless of what transpires. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You may want to log...
....this at General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log. And not that i'm contesting it (in fact i am for a general 1RR policy), but what exactly made you pick that particular article? It doesn't seem to have been in any serious problems for a bit - since most reverts have been vandal/anon reverts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I did log it, although maybe not quite right? (perhaps after you posted this?) It's hard to decide what order to do things in, do you log first or the sanction first? As to why that one, I thought that was the article that was in question, it seemed to be the one that sparked the discussion, and the one that I thought other admins were saying needed 1RR. I may have erred, though, I will review. 18:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been a mistake by you - Peterlewis hasn't edited GWC ? Do you think you meant Global warming conspiracy theory? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been reading that page over and over and going blue in the face from doing it, it's gotten so stale. Take a look at Ratel's first numbered point of the request. I've looked at that point's diff a few times now, and... it's not the article he names in the point. I 1RRed the article he named, not the article he gave diffs to. Clearly an error. Thanks for spotting it. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - i just noticed the same discrepancy :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorted now, I think. Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. I think the only useful order is log, then tag. This avoids unresolved references. The sanction goes into force only after both actions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be right Stephan, log first, then tag. Also, we should stash the edit notice verbage somewhere I think? Here's a link (to the one you added, thanks for that!) so I can find an example later ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stuck onto the probation page, also with a link to WP:Editnotice. See . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! Should help in future. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification Request
Lar, I appreciate your insight on the CC request involving me, but I would like a little clarification here. Two years ago, I reverted an edit by a user, calling it bad faith in the revert description. The user went to my talk page, complaining about my choice of terms. I explained my reasoning (again on my own page) but used the word "vandalism" in connection with the incident. Within 15 minutes, and no other action on my part, I had received a 24-hour block from any and all edits, courtesy of admin BozMo. I didn't question his decision then, nor do I now. I went away, and I think came back a better editor for the emotional detachment it forced upon me.

However, I do question what appears to be a very real flaw in the level of the playing field here. What this user did today to me was so far beyond what I did that words can't express it. A groundless charge that wasted the majority of my day, accusations of bad faith, intentional disruption, insults, snide remarks, which continued even after multiple requests to adhere to AGF and civility. Worse, he vented not only upon me, but upon other editors for doing no more than defending my actions, going so far to accuse one of sock puppetry, and make blanket accusations against admins. He further said he was "unable to detach his anger" from his editing, and that he felt "we both should be banned", which certainly appears a tacit admission he felt his actions deserved it.

Yet no action whatsoever is being taken, not even a request for him to apologize to me (which I would certainly be satisfied with). Now, I'd like to think that perhaps Wikipedia is just a warmer and cuddlier place today than it was then. But realistically, I realize had I myself engaged in even half this behavior against an established editor on the other side of the fence, I'd now be looking at a lengthy topic ban, if not worse. So I'm going to repeat my earlier request. I feel that, at the very least this user should either formally apologize, or at least be prohibited from making any similar charges against me for a period of time.

Thank you again for your attention to this. FellGleaming (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FG: I see your point. But I'm not sure support would be there for more than what I've proposed. The playing field isn't level. It isn't likely to get level all at once, either. It isn't fair. But Wikipedia isn't guaranteed to be fair. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it was a waste of time but I don't buy into the CC sanctions and so will not comment there. This is after dealing with sanctions in the Balkans area of wikipedia, which are far more heated than this CC nonsense which should never have been initiated. What you should have done is grovelled to Hipocrite that you had made a mistake and what Hipocrite should have done was complain on talkpages and not bring this to CC sanctions. However, you do have a tendency as a newish user to edit first and explain later but this doesn't need to be an issue. Polargeo (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a bit of an ironic joke about grovelling but I hope you get my meaning. Best to appease other editors when you make a mistake. This doesn't absolve Hipocrite from making an over-zealous sanctions report. Polargeo (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Polargeo: I'm afraid I am still not sure exactly what point you are making. Would you be so kind as to try again? ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No I think I will not be so kind as it appears that you do not yourself extend this courtesy to other editors :) Polargeo (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example of that? I think I always try to listen, always try to explain when asked. You came by here, have left rather a bit of a rant, and my response is to try to understand what you're driving at. Do you think FG should have groveled more? Do you think H was out of line? Or what? your meaning is not clear. You do a rather unsatisfactory job of making your meaning plain in that regard, but you are quick to charge me with bias. OK, thanks for your input. I will give it the consideration it merits. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My input is simply based on every comment of yours that I have come across in dealing with these articles. I am quite simply disgusted with your edits. I will withdraw from this talkpage and not comment further or even follow this in any way but the next time I come across your clear personal bias I will respond to it. Polargeo (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So in other words you don't have any actual useful input, then, just a rant? Noted. You may want to look to the beam in your own eye before commenting on the mote in others. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just commenting on your very personal and unnecessary provocation of WMC. Your shockingly biased and heavy wading in to the extremely minor situation on Stephan Schulz's comment in possibly the wrong section of a discussion added together with several other provocational comments of yours I have seen on talkpages and your comment on the recent RfA I can only surmise that you should take a break. Polargeo (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which RFA is that? Other than that ... boy are you confused. Hard to know where to even start. ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I find that bringing in new editors helps resolve unreasonable people issues (and shows me when I am the unreasonable one!). Then it isn't just a case of you versus them, so you can also be more detached and enjoy the Wikipedia experience more. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephen: I agree that more eyes often help. The CC enforcement area could use more eyes, for sure. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The CC enforcement area could use a lot less bias from Lar. New editors who don't know wikipedia rules should not be taken to CC enforcement as in this case but they also should not be appeased to the extent that Lar appeases them when established editors report them for what is often the tip of the iceberg. I personally was struggling with this particular user's edits on a completely unrelated article and could easily have taken the case to enforcement myself. however, I am boycotting this ridiculous Lar policed enforcement and will continue to use usual wikipedia methods of negotiation with blocks as a "last resort" to deal with problems. Unlike this silly Gung-ho admin policed attitude to wikipedia enforced by these sanctions. Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When I have more time, I may get more involved directly. I'm sure this topic will be contentious for a while more. But I have noticed that inflammatory language may only entrench positions. You might consider alternative wording for the above paragraph such as:
 * I've noticed that Lar is often surprisingly sympathetic to new editors, even when established editors report issues. As it happens, I have found this editor particularly difficult to work with on a completely unrelated article, and was tempted to take the case to enforcement myself. Until this is resolved, I prefer the traditional tried and tested solutions of warning followed by blocks.
 * Anyway, pleasantness is often more productive than conflict. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I was being overly harsh. Polargeo (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FG is not a "new" editor. His first edit was in January 2008. He's been blocked twice - again, in 2008. He's got over 1,000 edits. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. Polargeo (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

1. My edit in this case not only broke no rules, but improved the article, a point neither of you have managed to dispute. Nor have you addressed that my "ban", that Hipocrite so gleefully alludes to, was for behavior far less disruptive than you've shown here....without sanction. My "ban" derived from annoying someone who lost his own Wikipedia admin status due to such abusive behavior.

2. Polargo, your own edits are problematic in a number of ways, but this is not the forum to discuss it.

3. Lar, I thank you for the honesty. The playing field isn't level; and Wikipedia is not fair. I'm here to improve the articles, and at the end of the day I can sleep with a clear conscience. Those that believe they're on a god-given mission to slant and censor ... I wish they could say the same. FellGleaming (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes i did notice
This And i have taken note :), thanks mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

GSCC
I've updated my report to include another instance of source misrepresentation today. Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I thought you said you weren't going to be doing that. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I said I wasn't going to dig through his history. I'll certainly be following his future contributions. Hipocrite (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. So this is new then. Thanks. My misread. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hello Lar, sorry to trouble you, but could you let me know the process for filing an arbitration request against another administrator, and whether or not I'm required to take any dispute resolution requests beforehand? Thanks. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You might find this useful reading Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration ... normally you should try other means of resolving the dispute first... talk directly to the admin, consider a request for mediation, consider raising the matter at WP:WQA (if it's an etiquette matter) or starting a request for comment or if the admin is recallable, consider a recall. These are in rough order of escalation of seriousness. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 11:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection request
Hi there, could you please consider protecting Ibrahim Ali (Malaysia). This is a BLP on a controversial politician that has been vandalised quite recently. More important than the vandalism has been attacks on the article's subject. Because the subject is quite obscure (I'm probably the only editor with him on watchlist), much of the dangerous material isn't picked up: it took over seven hours for this attack to be reverted:. Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected for a month as this is the first time the article has been protected. If things do not damp down after that we can go longer. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Closed
I closed this but I think that making general negative comments about someones behaviour (whether addressed to them or not) in a context where there is no immediate prospect of modifying their behaviour and where they are bound to see it does come under the widest definition of baiting. But realistically sometimes it may be hard to avoid ;) --BozMo talk 15:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. A suggestion, you may want to say 12 May instead of 12/05... to my US trained eye that sometimes reads like 05 December as that's how we write dates. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. --BozMo talk 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am still on watch Polargeo (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Seemed to be going nowhere and if anything was blocking people starting an RFC or similar. --BozMo talk 14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically it wasn't going anywhere because admins hadn't taken the time to answer the question regarding the scope of FG's previous warning. (ie. was it limited to topic-area - or did it have (as the text said) a general scope. If admins had replied to that question - then progress could have been made, either with discussion of the evidence - or with a close and possible reopen. This question is still unanswered. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My previous warning for calling a leaked email "leaked"? Kim, if you spent half the time on writing articles as you did on raising complaints against other people, we could shut down the Wikipedia project as complete, as all the articles would already be perfect in every respect.  In any case, never fear, as my sabbatical is nearly over, and I shall no longer have time to address the blatant BLP and POV issues being raised on CC articles.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hooray. No more crappy references. To be honest I will actually miss you becuase I think you are an editor who I can "work with" in the loosest sense :) Polargeo (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And though we disagree on underlying issues, I think you're one of the very few here with a sense of integrity and intellectual honesty about your edits. In 15 years, however, you are going to owe me a very large beer, when Dick Lindzen turns out to be correct, that anticipated warming turns out to be much smaller in magnitude, demonstrably without positive feedback forcings, and almost entirely benign. :)   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 16:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bait not taken. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ian Plimer
There is basically an out in out in edit war going on this BLP, please taske a look. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also asked WMC to stop editing the articles of living people that he has a declared citable conflict of interest with here. He is refusing to do so, where would be the correct location to raise this issue? Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW I think it has been discussed to death and agreed that his position as a scientist does not preclude these edits. His conduct might at some point but not at present. Meanwhile I will have a look at the Plimer dispute. --BozMo talk 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Baiting?
I'm "baiting" Davenbelle? How so? I won't comment on either Davenbelle's or Eudemis' page again after two stern admin warnings (thanks for not templating me, BTW ;>)- but I'm "baiting"? Let's get serious, here, please. Neither editor has addressed my questions, whatsoever. Only admins deserve responses? Are the diffs I've uncovered not only useless, but totally unworthy of comment? I'm trying to eliminate the impression of malfeasance by asking about it first, and I'm getting "stonewalled" instead... Doc9871 (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have to answer you if he doesn't want to. Your continually repeating questions, phrased in argumentative (and even mocking, in some cases) ways, is baiting. Take your dispute to proper channels. Open an SPI if you are sure he's socking again. Open a WQA or an ANI report, take a case to mediation, open a request for user comment, whatever. But stay off his page. Or else. Oh, and another thing. We extend editors the courtesy of addressing them by their current ID, not past ones. Use "Davenbelle" again and that'll get you a short block. Your approach here is ocmpletely unsatisfactory and it's time someone dealt with it. ++Lar: t/c 10:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't care if Jack Merridew comments on my page or not; I'm erasing nothing. Thanks for pointing out the odd double-standard, however, especially as I didn't comment further on his page after being warned (and won't, as I'll apparently get blocked).  Sorry that my tone was as harsh as it was, and I know it was provocative; I'll keep it more civil in the future.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not easy (I should know) but it's worth the effort, most of the time. ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 USRD newsletter
The April 2010 issue of USRD's newsletter is now available. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Spin control?
As Nuclear Warfare had already remarked by the time you commented on Cla68's enforcement request, there were severe problems with the text removed by Dr Connolley. I think you're seeing "spin control", not for the first time, when there are legitimate concerns about content, including both sourcing and balance. This isn't a banning matter. I think you have the good of the encyclopedia at heart but you've lost perspective in this particular enforcement request. Tasty monster (=TS ) 04:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with you. There IS spin control there. I think it's well past time that WMC was stopped from controlling things. But I'm willing to compromise if a year doesn't have consensus. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective it looks as if you have bought into the notion that those who are known to espouse mainstream views aren't supposed to try to moderate poorly sourced, slanted content that happens to push fringe views. Describing such edits as "spin control" ignores the problematic nature of the fringe editing.

Look, as you now find your comments on the enforcement page being taken to task by both of the other uninvolved admins who have commented, it's hardly as if you need to take my word for it. You've kicked over the traces on this occasion. Not a big deal, you'll move on from this. But for now, there is a problem with your analysis, or at least, with your presentation. Tasty monster (=TS ) 04:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with blogs, really. (I agree about not using blogs as sources, and have. Not a new position on my part) The well sourced stuff was removed too. THAT's the spin control. It's happened before, too. ++Lar: t/c 11:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so I understand best practices - if someone inserts obviously defamatory information cited to a blog comment on a no-login unmoderated highly partisan blog, but also inserts content in the exact same edit that is purportedly attributable to the New York Times what exactly is best practice? My understanding was to revert first and track down sources later. Was that understanding incorrect? Hipocrite (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is not an incorrect understanding. As far as it goes. Your understanding is incorrect in other areas, though. ++Lar: t/c 13:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean in the areas where WMC's motive was less than pure? I'm totally in agreement with you. Two caveats - firstly, when people with bad motives take right actions, the appropriate action is to ignore those actions and wait for wrong actions before acting, and if we're prepared to ban on less-than-pure motives alone, I'd ask that try to balance things by suggesting a wide swath of people whose only substantive edits are climate change related. I'll even co-file a request with you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In an effort to remove some of the local circumstances that I think are clouding the issue (specifically, the presence of edits by Dr Connolley) I have opened a new discussion of the problematic use of blogs for sourcing within the probation area. See the talk page of the probation enforcement page. Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Avoidance of rhetoric
@Lar. It's probably best to avoid that kind of rhetoric on these pages. Doesn't seem to help, though I agree with you 100%. It's honestly sad.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WMC is indeed unsanctionable. I do feel like a lone voice in the wilderness pointing out these issues. If all my fellow admins are blind to it, perhaps I should turn a blind eye as well, deliberately, and go back to pottering about with less important matters. ++Lar: t/c 13:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean that you shouldn't make the same judgment call in the future, nor that you shouldn't make it on the same basis. I'm just pointing out that it might be more effective to phrase it differently (e.g., more "this is straight WP policy I'm talking about"). If you're bored, you might read this article for inspiration on that front: link straight to .pdf, hosting website.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that I *have* been sanctioned, and indeed am under 1RR parole, this is obvious... Bollocks, as LHVU might say William M. Connolley (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "unsanctionable in any meaningful way" ? ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A lone voice is better than no voice. I suggest you continue doing what you're doing, voicing your analysis (which I think is spot on), but respect the consensus of all participating admins. ATren (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Lar's judgment impaired?
I don't think it can be Dr Connolley on this occasion, though I don't follow his edits and cannot vouch for them all. On this occasion at least three uninvolved admins have examined the edits presented by Cla68 in the enforcement request and praised Connolley's actions. These are the very same actions that have led you to say that his conduct was "spin control" and "should not stand."

This suggests to me that your own judgement may be impaired in this instance. Not a big deal, but you should probably take it as a warning sign. If I were you I'd probably reevaluate the evidence in the light of the external comments. What may appear to you as "spin control" (whatever that term may mean to you) may have a quite innocent explanation, as seems to be the case here. Perhaps you find that the external comments themselves look like spin control, in which case perhaps it may be that your understanding of meaning of the term, and its applicability to our policies, is the point of failure. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And perhaps the other admins are wrong. That's always a dangerous view to hold for down that road lies The Truth... so I am aware of the precipice... ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course you could be right and all the others could be wrong. Here is how I propose you should resolve this.  I think the matters you raise are so obviously beyond the competence of the probation that you have to take your evidence to the Arbitration Committee and ask them to open a case concerning Dr Connolley's editing.  --TS 15:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Perhaps we are wrong, I cannot deny the logical possiblity. But at 7-1 against you I think declaring everyone else to be a clique of WMC defenders is in danger of making you look like there is some issue of your judgement not just about WMC but about the wider world, aside from it being not assuming good faith about seven uninvolved admins. You may be seeing patterns we cannot see because we have not seen enough of the past. But at least please don't blame everyone else for that. --BozMo talk 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown (no relation) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually attributed to Sagan, Broca's Brain (1980). --TS 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BozMo, another possibility is that admins don't want to oppose WMC, because when they do they get bombarded by accusations of bias and involvement, as Lar has here. I have personally witnessed admins who tried to sanction WMC, but were rebuked so strongly that they withdrew entirely. And if we're talking about pure numbers here, why not count how many enforcement requests WMC has received (about a dozen now), and from how many different respected editors (probably half a dozen)? ATren (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ATren, I note that you yourself bombarded User:2over0 with repeated requests that he cease taking action in the probation area, in part because he did not support proposals for strong sanctions against the very same vested user, William M. Connolley. .  That alone seems to be good evidence that an admin is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.  Since 2over0 clearly wasn't unduly discouraged by your repeated application of pressure, why should a whole heap of other admins be afraid of pressure in the other direction? --TS 16:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar hasn't been nearly as active as 2/0, especially in terms of actual enforcement, yet he has received much more grief for participating in a way that is critical of WMC. So your argument doesn't hold water simply because the magnitude of backlash is so much stronger against Lar (and LHvU, for that matter). And FWIW, I have personally witnessed cases where other admins were hounded off enforcement against WMC (two in particular stand out, off the top of my head). Even Lar, an experienced admin who would never be accused shying away from tough topics, has expressed reservations about his continued activity here after the barrage of criticism he's received. If someone as established as Lar can be hounded so much for criticizing WMC, what hope does a lesser known admin have? (and again, I'll stress, I have seen it personally) ATren (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per sae, criticising WMC is fine. I am not sure people get hounded for it, although I have come to expect strong disagreement from WMC himself and I am sure WMC often deserves some criticism (as do I and most other people to varying degrees). But I am also concerned that Lar drifts into personal language and a battleground characterisation of participants in a way which tends to entrench rather than break down barriers at times. This is clearly counterproductive and self perpetuating. So lets all cool it a bit. --BozMo talk 19:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Stamped Addressed Envelope? @AT: Lar gets crit for being badly biased because he is. And for all his wilting-violet oh-its-all-too-much it hasn't actually stopped him commenting, and is about as convincing as your "I'm not a skeptic". And your unnamed admins are about as convincing as the legions of unnamed excellent editors who have been driven away from GW articles whose names just happen to have slipped your mind, too William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC, always a pleasure. Was there anything you wanted to acknowledge you could have done better in any way in this latest kerfluffle? Or ever? Just curious, since you are so quick to criticize others. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on Lar, you can do better than this. This latest kerfuffle is entirely pointless. As already said on the probation page, the incident was already *over* when Cla decided to indulge himself, and you made your truely absurd attack on me by asking for a 1 year ban. And now you're complaining about me criticising people? Look in a mirror old fruit William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC: You know my name. You do not, by all appearances, consider me your friend. Therefore: do not call me "old fruit" again. My question stands, though. What exactly do you acknowledge you do wrong? If anything? ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do many things wrong. Asking so open ended a question invotes a long list. For example, I assumed for far too long that you would be reasonable ni these matters - that was clearly an error on my part. So now your turn for a question: you "admit your biases" so you say. OK: what exactly are these biases that you own up to? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that either of you think that anything positive can come out of this exchange and so I invite you both to stop without worrying about who has the last word. --BozMo talk 09:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

On biases
I don't think Lar would deny his biases. He is open about his perception that there is an imbalance of some sort, and he has repeatedly referred to a wish to "level the playing field". He has opined on the shape the content should take, in particular arguing that global warming is not primarily a scientific subject and that the main article global warming should nt deal primarily with the science. At other times he alleges abusive conduct in pursuit of the ownership of articles by a clique. That few other uninvolved admins have expressed agreement with this perception suggests that it is off the mainstream for Wikipedia, though of course it could still be valid.

There's nothing wrong with having those opinions and sharing them. It's all about how they are expressed. A battleground mentality of the kind Lar seems to suggest exists cannot be dismantled by further saber-rattling. --TS 19:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or, it may be the case that other uninvolved admins (such as myself) recognize that global warming coverage on Wikipedia is a total mess, and we want to stay as far away from it as possible. The Wordsmith Communicate 20:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (to WS I think? ++L) Actually, that's the most intelligible thing I've read on Wikipedia all day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Intelligible but not particularly well researched. Wikipedia's global warming coverage is of exceptionally high quality and has attracted praise from experts in the field. --TS 20:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the belated reply, this discussion seems to have gotten lost in later threads. The articles themselves are of generally high quality, but a quick peek behind the scenes of any of the main ones is horrific. The Talk: and Wikipedia: namespace pages related t climate change are completely absurd, and I shudder when I think about getting involved in discussions there. So do many other prominent editors. The Wordsmith Communicate 01:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wordsmith: You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and you are amenable to changing your views when circumstances warrant, I've seen that several times now, and I clearly misjudged you at first. I'd encourage you to try a turn in the barrel. It is quite enlightening. Although that may not be a good thing if you're idealistic about the project. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lar, coming from you that means quite a lot to me. The Wordsmith Communicate 01:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (to WS I think? ++L) If you have anything constructive to say, feel free to say it (though here isn't the place). If all you want to do is snipe from the sidelines, then please don't William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC: You are welcome here, as are all who wish to discourse with me. However you are not welcome to admonish my other guests. Please don't do it again. ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Lar would deny his biases - I don't believe this. Lar persists in his implausible assertion that he is "uninvolved". No-one believes this, apart from the skeptics, who benefit from him. He has opined on the shape the content should take - yes indeed; and yet still clings to the I-haven't-edited-so-I'm-uninvolved. That is dishonest William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not deny my biases. We all have biases. And yet, I nevertheless am uninvolved. That's not dishonest. Your tactics are, though. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, do yourself a favour, quit the cc articles. Your wasting your time mate. mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Guettarda's spamming
Do you think you could stop making repetitive and unresponsive comments like the series that goes "How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick?" here? This makes the atmosphere much worse. --TS 16:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have responded to Guettarda's repetitive and unresponsive comments a different way, yes. But the point stands. He and Hip took something I quickly acknowledged as incorrect, and bludgeoned me with it, over and over. Tiresome. And a standard tactic, it seems. ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, the comment is still there. You haven't withdrawn it. It's still the basis of your argument for a topic ban. As is your false claim that there's some sort of a conspiracy. You repeatedly make these false claims. You backtrack a little when people push you, but you never withdraw the claims. You're trying to have it both ways. And that's the root of the problem. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want it explicitly struck instead of responded to a mere two lines below? Yeesh. ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, please provide a cite for where I assert there's a "conspiracy". ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You've made allegations concerning a group of enablers who have worked together in some way to defend an abusive editor and prevent him being sanctioned appropriately. That is a conspiracy, at least in the usual understanding of the word, --TS 19:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You and I "work together in some way" to make the encyclopedia better. We achieve this by hanging out on the same pages and by happening to have similar views, and similar approaches (in certain matters). Yet we are not co-conspirators by any stretch of the imagination. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite so. An agreement to work towards a legitimate goal with legitimate means is not a conspiracy.  But here you allege that unnamed "enablers" are working together to further an illegitimate goal, the abuse of Wikipedia, by illegitimate methods, blindly opposing sanctions against abusive editors among their number.  That's why the word conspiracy is used. --TS 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said they were working together by illegitimate means or methods, or toward an illegitimate goal. I have every confidence that the members of the cadre have nothing other than the loftiest of intentions. In fact, perhaps they are right, and the ends justify the means. AGW is a huge threat to mankind as a whole and perhaps my standing in this cadre's way, of trying to stop spin control, of insisting on adherence to the principles I thought this project was founded on as I see them, is actually doing humanity some small (miniscule to be frank, I don't delude myself on that score) disservice. Certainly our politicians don't seem to be taking the problem seriously enough. Deniers who may be lurking here... please realize I mean that very sincerely, without a trace of sarcasm. ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an unnecessarily contorted parsing of the meaning of the word "illegitimate", though I don't doubt the sincerity of your feelings. I think we've both made our opinions on the meaning of the term known well enough now so I'll leave it there. --TS 20:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be contorted. I'm just trying to clarify that I don't consider that cadre to be working toward what they feel is an "illegitimate" goal. And sometimes I wonder a bit if suppression of dissenting views might actually be for the best in this matter. In which case I should get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think their point was that this error undermined your reasoning, but if they also spammed I can understand your frustration. It's a fact that I'm sure you yourself would acknowledge, though, that the standards of conduct expected of you are higher. --TS 17:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Than Guettarda? Why? Be specific. Warning: it's a trap! ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly you're engaged as an uninvolved administrator, working solely to improve the situation in the probation area. Making edits that make relations worse, and being seen to do so, has cascade effects.  Secondly you're an exceptionally highly trusted editor, holding checkuser rights which are suspended during your term as ombudsman.  What you do and say matters more and has greater effect, so the effect of any bad behavior is magnified.  As far as I'm aware neither of these conditions applies to Guettarda or Hipocrite. Oh what they do does matter, of course, and for abusive actions they can be sanctioned.  But how you conduct yourself does make more difference. --TS 19:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers
The Barnstar of Integrity


 * I can only agree that the giver represents a fair assessment of the integrity of your work here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Typical. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't let him rattle you. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I'm not rattled. In fact, I was delighted that WMC has once again demonstrated not only the caliber of his character, but also that of his supporters. Every such demonstration may not promote self-enlightenment, but hopefully it'll illuminate others. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC, how thoughtful of you to share your views. It's always a pleasure interacting with you. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What would you think about something like this?
I'm sure you can't imagine which articles I think it might apply to. Systemic Unreliability tag. Thparkth (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It violates No disclaimers in articles, as it is not temporary. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it does, because it does not "duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages". Thparkth (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity" seems to cover what this is saying, albeit in far far less detail. However I think you could make a case that it's temporary (that is, until the problem with editing is fixed) or ought to be. I like the idea here but don't know if it's workable. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The situation described in the current version of the template is an irretrievable breakdown of Wikipedia's processes. In such a case, where all appropriate paths of dispute resolution have been tried and failed, the next step is not to place a template (which cannot possibly remedy the problem) but to go to arbitration.

If there are severe enough content problems once the Committee has accepted the case, they can pass an injunction, for instance, to have the article stubbed down and protected pending resolution of the case.

If the content is severely compromised, in other words, there is never likely to be a genuine need to put up a hand-wringing template of that kind. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're right for the most part, but you have a lot more faith in the arbitration process than I do. Thparkth (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with Tony's analysis. Thparkth: your point is well taken, but if the arbitration process is malfunctioning to the point that we can't use it at all, the project itself is probably irretrievably broken. In which case, forking to rescue the content may be the only alternative. While I think improvement in the arbitration process is possible, I don't think it's come to that by any means. Rather, I think recent ArbComs have been getting better. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Both your comments and Tony's are well-taken. I'm afraid that with regard to some articles, the project itself is irretrievably broken. Does anyone really doubt that there is a systemic problem with reliability in highly contentious topic areas? I find myself concluding that the Wikipedia model simply cannot produce good quality, balanced articles in these cases. I'm not seriously proposing that my disclaimer should be used, but to my mind it's an interesting possibility. Thparkth (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * " the Wikipedia model simply cannot produce good quality, balanced articles in these cases" Perhaps it cannot. Case in point, the many BLP horrors we still have... ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I think that the global warming article is an example of exactly the opposite - a case where the Wikipedian model has produced quality content on a highly contentious topic. The article has been repeatedly assessed by reputable external reviewers as being of excellent quality. I do agree that a lot of the sub-articles, and BLPs in particular, suffer from serious problems, but I guess I see the glass as half-full. I'm usually impressed at Wikipedia's actual content on high-profile, controversial topics, particularly considering that it was generated by near-anarchic pseudonymous online interaction. For example, our articles on both John McCain and Barack Obama were in remarkably good shape around election time in 2008, considering the amount of political investment in the subjects. Anyhow... MastCell Talk 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." -Daniel J. Boorstin TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I quite agree. That's sort of what I've been trying to get at: there's this persistent illusion that the climate-change articles reflect terribly on Wikipedia. But that's demonstrably not the case. MastCell Talk 05:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think most of the critics of the AGW area of Wikipedia agree that the problem is the way that BLPs of AGW-related people get treated and the way editors, including newbies, are treated on the talk pages of the AGW articles when they try to advocate any changes to article content. Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the BLPs are a substantial problem. I'm very uncomfortable whenever controversies are prosecuted through the BLPs of involved parties. MastCell Talk 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell: The ends don't justify the means. Even if the entire AGW topic area were perfect in every way, the process by which it got that way (as Cla highlights) would be totally unacceptable. ++Lar: t/c 10:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "The ends don't justify the means" is useful as a starting point for a nuanced discussion, rather than as a thought-terminating cliché. Most thinking people recognize qualified instances where the ends do justify the means; I know that you're among them. In any case, I don't think the environment at present is conducive to nuanced discussion, and I wasn't making any sort of comment about the means. There's a general unwillingness to concede that the end result has been favorably reviewed by reputable external sources, despite ample and oft-cited documentation. If we can't even get that far, then I doubt we'll be able to tackle the means in any substantial way. MastCell Talk 19:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)